Errors that each day subconsciously makes our brain

Get ready for a "brain explosion"! You will be shocked to learn what mental errors we are constantly committing. Of course, they are not life threatening and do not talk about "the near crazy." But it would be nice to learn how to avoid them, as many tend to rationality in decision-making. Most thinking errors occur at the subconscious level, so it is difficult to eradicate them. But the more we know about thinking, the wiser our actions.

Let's find out what mistakes every day unconsciously makes our brain.

We surround ourselves with information, which coincides with our beliefs

We like people who think the same as we are. If we are inwardly agree with someone's opinion, it is very likely that we will be friends with this person. This is fine, but it means that our subconscious mind begins to ignore and reject anything that threatens the usual attitude. We surround ourselves with people and information that only confirms what we already know.

This effect is called confirmation bias. If you ever heard about the phenomenon of the Baader - Meinhof, you will easily understand what it is. The phenomenon of the Baader - Meinhof is that to learn something unknown, you begin to constantly come up against information about it (turns out it much, but for some reason you did not notice it).

For example, you bought a new car and began to consistently meet all exactly the same. Or a pregnant woman encounters with ladies everywhere as it located in an interesting position. We believe that the boom in the birth rate and the peak of the popularity of a particular brand of car. But in fact, the number of these events has not increased - just our brain seeks information relevant to us.

We are actively seeking information that confirms our beliefs. But prejudice is manifested not only in relation to the incoming information, but also in memory.

In 1979, an experiment was conducted at the University of Minnesota. The participants were asked to read a story about a woman named Jane, who in some cases acted as an extrovert, and in others - as an introvert. When the volunteers went back a few days later, they were divided into two groups. The first group remembered Jane as an introvert, so when its members were asked, would suit her librarian job or not, they replied in the affirmative; the other asked, she could be Jane realtor. Members of the second group, on the other hand, were convinced that Jane - an extrovert, which means that it is suitable realtor career, rather than a boring library. This proves that the effect of the confirmation bias is evident even in our memories.

In 2009, Ohio State University study showed that we spend 36% more time reading articles that confirms our beliefs.

If your beliefs are intertwined with the idea of ​​yourself, you will not be able to reject them without shaking the self-esteem. So you're just trying to avoid opinions that are contrary to your beliefs. David Makreyni

Makreyni David (David McRaney) - writer and journalist, passionate enthusiastic psychology. He is the author of books such as "Now you're not so stupid" (You Are Now Less Dumb) And "Psychology of nonsense. Misconceptions that prevent us from living "(original title - You are Not So Smart).

The video below - it's a trailer for the first of them. It is a good demonstration of how the effect of bias confirmation. Just think, for centuries people believed that geese grow on trees!

We believe in the illusion of "swimmer's body"

The author of several bestsellers about thinking Dobell Rolf (Rolf Dobelli) in the book "The art of thinking clearly" (The Art of Thinking Clearly) Explains why our understanding of the talent or physical training is not always true.

Professional swimmers have the perfect body, not only due to the fact that the train intensively. The opposite is true: they swim well, because they are by nature different physique given. Physical data - selection factor, and not the result of daily training.

The illusion of "swimmer's body" occurs when we confuse cause and effect. Another good example - prestigious universities. Are they the best of themselves, or they just choose smart students who, like them or teach, everything will still show the result and maintain the image of institution? The brain often plays with us in these games.

Without this illusion half of advertising agencies have already ceased to exist. Rolf Dobell

Indeed, if we know that something is good by nature (for example, run fast), we do not kupimsya advertising sneakers that promise to improve our fast.

The illusion of "swimmer's body" suggests that our understanding of a particular phenomenon can strongly disagree with the actions to be taken to achieve the result.

We are experiencing the lost

The term "sunk costs" is most common in business, but it can be attributed to any spheres. It's not just about the material resources (time, money, etc.), but everything that has been spent and can not be restored. Any sunk costs bother us.

The reason why this happens, lies in the fact that the disappointment of losing is always stronger than the joy of the acquisition. Here's how it explains the psychologist Daniel Kahneman (Daniel Kahneman) in his book "Thinking, fast and slow" (Thinking: Fast and Slow):

At the gene level, the ability to anticipate the danger passed more often than the ability to use the opportunities to the maximum. Therefore, the gradual loss of the fear became stronger behavioral motivator than benefits on the horizon.

The next study perfectly illustrates how this works.

In 1985, Hal Arkes (Hal Arkes) and Catherine Blumer (Catherine Blumer) conducted an experiment, the results of which demonstrated how a person becomes irrational when it comes to non-performing costs. The scientists asked volunteers to imagine that they can go on a ski trip in Michigan for $ 100, and go skiing in Wisconsin for $ 50. The second sentence if they found a little later, but it was much more favorable for the conditions, so many have bought a ticket and there too. But then it turned out that the timing of a tour the same (lease or exchange tickets can not), so the participants were faced with a choice where to go - a good resort for $ 100 or very good for $ 50. How do you think they chose?

More than half of the subjects chose the more expensive trip (Michigan $ 100). She did not promise such a comfort, as the second, but the losses outweighed.

Misconception about sunk costs makes us ignore logic, irrational act based on emotion rather than facts. It prevents us from making a reasonable choice, a sense of loss in the present overshadow future prospects.

At the same time, since this reaction is subconscious, it is very difficult to avoid. The best advice in this case - to try to separate the current facts of what happened in the past. For example, if you bought a movie ticket and at the beginning of the session to understand that the movie is terrible, you can:

• stay and watch the picture until the end, because "uplocheno" (sunk costs);
• or leave the cinema and do what you really like.

Most importantly, remember that you do not return their "investment". They are gone, sunk into oblivion. Forget about it and do not let the memories of lost resources to influence your decisions.

We incorrectly estimate the odds

Imagine you and a friend are playing in the toss. Again and again, you toss a coin and try to guess what will fall - heads or tails. When this is your chance to win - 50%. Now let's assume that you flip a coin five times and each time an eagle dropped. Probably the sixth time should fall tails, is not it?

Not really. The probability that falls tails, still 50%. Always. Every time you flip a coin. Even if the eagle dropped 20 times in a row, the probability is not changed.

This phenomenon is called Player error (False or Monte Carlo output). This failure of our thinking, proving how much the person being illogical. People do not realize that the probability of the desired outcome does not depend on previous outcomes of a random event. Each time a coin goes up, the likelihood that falls tails, equal to 50%.

This mental trap produces another error subconscious - the expectation of a positive outcome. As you know, hope dies last, so often players in the casino after a loss does not go away, but on the contrary, double the rate. They believe that the black stripe can not last forever, and they will be able to win. But the odds are always the same and is not dependent on previous failures.

We make unnecessary purchases, and then justify their

How many times, coming back from the store, you were annoyed with their purchases and started to come up with a reasonable justification for them? Something you do not want to buy, but buy something too expensive for you, but you are "forked", something that works quite differently than you expected, and therefore, it is useless for you.

But we immediately begin to inspire myself that these pretentious, useless and ill-considered purchases were badly needed. This phenomenon is called postshopingovoy rationalization or buyer Stockholm syndrome.

Social psychologists argue that we skillfully justify foolish purchase, because we want to be consistent in their eyes and avoid the state of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance - a psychological discomfort that we feel when in the head facing conflicting ideas or emotions.

For example, you consider yourself a friendly person who relates well to strangers (always ready to lend a helping hand). But suddenly, he saw on the street, that someone will stumble and fall, just pass by... There is a conflict between the ideas about themselves and the assessment of his action. Inside becomes so unpleasant that we have to change the mindset. And you do not consider yourself to be friendly towards strangers, so that there is nothing reprehensible in your act.

With impulse purchasing the same. We excuse ourselves for as long as not begin to believe that this thing we really need, and therefore you should not blame themselves for it. In other words, justified as our understanding of ourselves and the actions do not match.

To deal with this very difficult, because, as a rule, we first do and then think. Therefore, there is nothing left but to rationalize after the fact. Yet, when the store hand reaches for unnecessary things, try to remember that then have to justify ourselves for its acquisition.

We make decisions based on the anchor effect

Dan Ariely (Dan Ariely) - PhD in cognitive psychology and business, psychology professor and behavioral economics at Duke University, founder of the Center for retrospective research. Ariely is also the author of such bestsellers as "positive irrationality", "All (the truth) of sin"" Behavioral economics. Why do people behave irrationally, and how to capitalize on this. " The focus of his research - the irrationality of the human brain during decision-making. He always demonstrates the error of our thinking. One of them - the effect of the anchor.

anchor effect (or heuristics binding and adjustment anchor effect) - a feature of numeric values ​​of (.. time, money, etc.) at which the evaluation is shifted toward the initial value. In other words, we do not use an objective and comparative assessment (it is much more / more profitable compared to).

Here are some examples described by Dan Ariely and demonstrates the effect of anchors in action.

Advertisers know that the word "free" is a magnet for people. But free does not necessarily mean profitable. So, once Arieli decided to trade candy. I chose two varieties: Hershey's Kisses and Lindt Truffles. In the first set the price of 1 penny, that is 1 cent (US pennies penny commonly called). The price tag on the second was 15 cents. Realizing that Lindt Truffles - premium chocolates and usually more expensive, buyers believed that 15 cents for them - it's a great deal, and it took them.

But Ariely then went to the trick. He was selling the same candies, but reduced their cost a cent, that is, Kisses were now free, and Truffles cost 14 cents. Certainly, Truffles for 14 cents - it was still extremely profitable offer, but most buyers are now opting for "Freestuff» Kisses.

The effect of cost transience is always on the alert. It protects you from having to spend more than you can afford. David Makreyni

Another example that Dan Ariely said during a speech at TED. When people are offered a choice of holiday options, for example a trip to Rome, all inclusive or a similar trip to Paris, then to make a decision quite difficult. Because each of these cities, its color, I want to go here and there. But if you add a third option - a trip to Rome, but without coffee in the morning - everything changes immediately. When on the horizon looms the prospect of paying for coffee every morning, the first sentence (the eternal city, where everything is free) suddenly becomes the most attractive, even better than a trip to Paris.

Finally, a third example of Dan Ariely. The scientist suggested that MIT students are three versions of subscription to the popular magazine The Economist: 1) Web version for $ 59; 2) a printed version for $ 125; 3) electronic and printed version for $ 125. Obviously, the last sentence is absolutely useless, but it was his chosen 84% of students. Another 16% chose the web version, but the "paper" not chosen one.

Dan then repeated the experiment on another group of students, but without offering a subscription to the print version. At this time, the majority chose a cheaper web-version of the magazine.

This is the effect of an anchor: we see no benefit proposals as such, but only in comparison of proposals with each other. So sometimes, limiting themselves a choice, we can take a rational decision.

We believe our memories more than the facts

Memories are often wrong. And yet subconsciously we trust them more than the facts of objective reality. This is reflected in the effect of the availability heuristic.

Availability heuristic - a process in which a person intuitively evaluate the possibility of the certain events according to how easy it can resume in a memory such examples cases. Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky

For example, you read the book. After that, you are requested to open it to any page and determine which words on it more: the ending in "tsya" or words with penultimate letter "c". Of course, that will last longer (because in the reflexive verb "c" is always the penultimate letter, in addition, a lot of nouns, where "c" is also the penultimate letter). But based on probability, you would almost certainly have answered that page more words to the end of "tsya" because they are easier to notice and remember.

Availability heuristic - a natural thought process, but Chicago scientists have shown that by avoiding it, people will be much more reasonable solutions.

Experience based on memories is very important. But trust only the following facts. Do not make decisions based on gut instinct, always explore, check and recheck data.

We are much more prone to stereotyping than we think

The funny thing is that the thinking described errors are so ingrained in our subconscious that the question arises: Is this an error? The answer to it gives another mental paradox.

The mind of man is so prone to stereotypes that cling to them, even if they can not be absolutely no logic.

In 1983, Daniel Kahneman (Daniel Kahneman) and Amos Tversky (Amos Tversky) decided to test how illogical people, with the following fictional character:

Linda for 31 years. She is not married, but open and quite attractive. I get a profession related to philosophy, and, as a student, was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice. In addition, Linda has repeatedly participated in demonstrations against nuclear weapons.

The researchers read a description of the subjects and asked them to answer what is probably Linda: a bank teller or a bank teller + active participant in the feminist movement.

The catch is that if the second option is true, then the first automatically too. This means that the second version is only half true: Linda can be a feminist, and can not be. But, unfortunately, many people tend to rely on a more detailed description and can not understand it. 85% of respondents said that Linda - teller and a feminist.

Daniel Kahneman - psychologist, one of the founders of psychological economics and behavioral finance, once said:

I was amazed. I worked for many years in the neighboring building with my fellow economists, but even could not think that our two intellectual worlds - the gulf. For any psychologist it is obvious that people are often irrational and illogical, but their tastes do not differ stability.

Thus, to be irrational and illogical to think - it is normal for human beings. Especially when you consider that the spoken word can not express all our thoughts. Nevertheless, the knowledge described subconscious brain mistakes can help us make better decisions.