Thinking Traps You Have Already Fallen Into. Part II
Well, dear readers, welcome to the second part of my dilogy on the mistakes of our thinking. You can check the first part by hitting the link below. Enjoy.
Straight to the point!
The Paradox Of Choice.
Do you know who we owe the breakthrough research in behavioural psychology to? Marketers! Because that’s their job.
Once, they did an experiment: they set up a stand in a shop with jams that you could taste and buy at a discount. In the first experiment, 24 different types of jam were available, while, in the second experiment, only 6 were. In the first case, more people came to the stand, but in the second case more people bought jam, and many times over.
The opportunity of choice is great. But if it becomes too much, we can’t carefully consider all the options presented. And even if we choose one thing, we may hesitate in our decision.
In the old days, people didn’t have that many choices, and everybody used what they had. For example, if a few centuries ago you were born into a peasant family, the only option was to follow in the footsteps of your parents.
Nowadays, the average person has the opportunity and the resource to do anything. Or, at least, they think they do.
And so it becomes clear why many people find it difficult to make their own choices. After all, it is much easier to make a wrong decision in this respect if you have many options.
When faced with a wide range of options, use the elimination method: first eliminate what you don’t need, and then choose from the rest.
Non-recoverable Costs, Sunk Costs, or The Concorde Effect.
Persistency is a noble quality. We value and respect it in people. However, sometimes this quality fails. The more time and resources we have invested in something, the harder it is to leave it, even if we no longer need or benefit from it.
You don’t have to finish a crappy coffee, bad movie, an uninteresting book or keep a jumper that you bought a year ago but have never worn.
But we have already spent the money, time, and attention, and now we have to sort of “pay it off”. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the Concord effect.
In 1962, Britain and France began joint development of a new supersonic passenger aircraft, the Concorde. After an initial budget of $130 million, it became clear that the project was not working. However, in an attempt to recoup the investment, the countries continued to invest, eventually spending $2.8 billion.
The ability not to give up and try again is one of the most important skills in human life. But sometimes the ability to let go is even more important.
The Barnum Effect.
Let’s have a test. Do you fit the following description?
You are quite self-critical. You have many talents that you don’t use to your advantage. Although you have some personal weaknesses, you are generally able to “iron them out”. While apparently calm and confident, you actually tend to worry and be anxious inside, and at times you have serious doubts about the decisions you make.
If this sounds like you, congratulations! You fit the most imprecise possible description, and also the Barnum effect. The Barnum effect is that you tend to recognize yourself in generalized personality descriptions.
In our case, it was a section from a horoscope used in an experiment by the American psychologist Bertram Forer. He issued a personality test to his students but didn’t look at the answers, just gave them this description as a personal result. And then asked them to rate the accuracy of the description from 0 to 5. And the average score for the class was 4.26. Pretty much. And now we know what accounts for the popularity of astrology and other suspicious socionics.
The Halo Effect.
John: Smart, impulsive, cold-blooded, stubborn, and envious.
Michael: Envious, stubborn, cold-blooded, impulsive, and smart.
Which of these two did you like better?
I bet it was John, although their character traits are the same, just listed in a different order.
John is smart at first and then jealous. And Michael is envious before he’s smart. This kind of distortion is called the Halo effect. The first piece of the puzzle encourages us to recreate the whole picture, without waiting for it to be completed. John, though envious, will help him to realize his intelligence. Michael may seem clever, but all he does is make frauds of those he envies.
Under the Halo effect, we take a particular set of situations as defining, while forgetting the rest of the puzzle. Knowing a person’s preferences makes it easy to manipulate them. It is not difficult to pull the right strings of “his Halo” to be the best version of him.
Surely you thought it was much easier for good-looking people to gain trust among other people, didn’t you?
It really is.
We subconsciously read beautiful people as trustworthy and honest. The first impression makes the person you are talking to skip over all the steps of perception and jump straight to conclusions.
But the Halo effect can be used for more than just self-interest. For example, when criticizing someone else’s work, it is smarter to say the pluses of what has been done first and then only the minuses. This makes it easier for the person we are talking to accept criticism and prevents him or her from becoming defensive from the start.
So, on that note, I end my dilogy on errors in thinking. Thank you so much for taking the time to read my article. If you enjoyed the material, I’d love to have your subscription on Medium. Be vigilant and don’t let your brain fool you ;)
