Mistakes that our brain subconsciously makes every day

2024 Author: Malcolm Clapton | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 03:44

Man is a rational being. Perhaps this is the biggest misconception of the representatives of Homo sapiens about themselves. In fact, there is a lot of irrational in our behavior. This article will tell you what mistakes our brain subconsciously makes every day.

Get ready for a "brain explosion"! You will be shocked to learn what mental mistakes we make all the time. Of course, they are not life-threatening and do not speak of "mindlessness." But it would be nice to learn how to avoid them, because many strive for rationality in their decision-making. Most thinking errors occur at the subconscious level, so it is very difficult to eradicate them. But the more we know about thinking, the more reasonable our actions are.

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

We surround ourselves with information that aligns with our beliefs

We like people who think the same way as we do. If we internally agree with someone's opinion, then there is a high probability that we will make friends with that person. This is normal, but it means that our subconscious mind begins to ignore and reject everything that threatens our usual attitude. We surround ourselves with people and information that only confirm what we already know.

This effect is called confirmation bias. If you have ever heard of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, it will be easy for you to understand what it is. The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon lies in the fact that, having learned something unknown, you start constantly coming across information about it (it turns out, there is a lot of it, but for some reason you did not notice it).

For example, you bought a new car and started seeing exactly the same car everywhere. Or a pregnant woman everywhere encounters ladies like her, who are in an interesting position. It seems to us that there is a boom in the birth rate in the city and the peak of the popularity of a particular car brand. But in fact, the number of these events has not increased - our brain is simply looking for information that is relevant to us.

We actively seek information to support our beliefs. But bias manifests itself not only in relation to incoming information, but also in memory.

In 1979, an experiment was conducted at the University of Minnesota. Participants were asked to read a story about a woman named Jane who acted as an extrovert in some cases and as an introvert in others. When the volunteers returned a few days later, they were divided into two groups. The first group remembered Jane as an introvert, so when asked if she would be a good librarian or not, they said yes; the other was asked if Jane could be a realtor. The second group, on the other hand, were convinced that Jane was an extrovert, which meant that a career as a realtor would suit her, not a boring library. This proves that the effect of confirmation bias is evident even in our memories.

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

If your beliefs are intertwined with your self-image, you cannot drop them without shaking your self-esteem. Therefore, you are simply trying to avoid opinions that run counter to your beliefs. David McRaney

David McRaney is a writer and journalist with a passion for psychology. He is the author of books such as You Are Now Less Dumb and The Psychology of Stupidity. The delusions that prevent us from living”(original title - You are Not So Smart).

The video below is a trailer for the first one. It demonstrates well how the confirmation bias effect works. Just think, people have believed for centuries that geese grow on trees!

We believe in the swimmer's body illusion

The author of several bestselling books on thinking, Rolf Dobelli, in The Art of Thinking Clearly explains why our ideas about talent or fitness are not always correct.

Professional swimmers have perfect bodies not only because they exercise intensely. Quite the opposite: they swim well, because they are naturally given an excellent physique. Physical data is a selection factor, not the result of daily training.

The swimmer's body illusion occurs when we confuse cause and effect. Another good example is prestigious universities. Are they really the best in themselves, or do they just choose smart students who, no matter how they are taught, will still show results and maintain the image of the institution? The brain often plays such games with us.

Without this illusion, half of advertising agencies would have ceased to exist. Rolf Dobelly

Indeed, if we know that we are naturally good at something (for example, we run fast), we will not buy into sneaker ads that promise to improve our speed.

The illusion of the "swimmer's body" suggests that our ideas about a particular phenomenon can be very different from the actions that should be taken to achieve the result.

We are worried about the lost

The term sunk cost is most commonly used in business, but it can be applied to any area. It's not only about material resources (time, money, etc.), but about everything that was spent and cannot be restored. Any sunk costs are of concern to us.

The reason why this happens is because the disappointment of loss is always stronger than the joy of gain. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains it in Thinking: Fast and Slow:

At the genetic level, the ability to anticipate danger was passed down more often than the ability to maximize opportunities. Therefore, gradually the fear of loss has become a stronger behavioral motivator than the benefits on the horizon.

The following research illustrates perfectly how this works.

In 1985, Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer conducted an experiment that demonstrated how illogical a person becomes when it comes to sunk costs. The researchers asked the volunteers to imagine they could go skiing to Michigan for $ 100, and also go skiing to Wisconsin for $ 50. They supposedly discovered the second offer a little later, but it was much more profitable in terms of the terms, so many bought a ticket there too. But then it turned out that the terms of the vouchers coincide (tickets cannot be returned or exchanged), so the participants were faced with a choice of where to go - to a good resort for $ 100 or a very good one for $ 50. What do you think they chose?

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

The sunk cost fallacy forces us to ignore logic and act irrationally based on emotions rather than facts. This prevents us from making intelligent choices, the sense of loss in the present obscures the prospects for the future.

Moreover, since this reaction is subconscious, it is very difficult to avoid it. The best recommendation in this case is to try to separate the current facts from what happened in the past. For example, if you bought a movie ticket and realized at the beginning of the screening that the movie was terrible, you can:

• stay and watch the picture to the end, as it is "consolidated" (sunk costs);
• or leave the cinema and do what you really enjoy.

Most importantly, remember: you will not get your "investment" back. They are gone, sank into oblivion. Forget it and don't let the memory of lost resources influence your decisions.

We misjudge the odds

Imagine you and a friend are playing toss. Over and over you flip a coin and try to guess which comes up - heads or tails. Moreover, your chance of winning is 50%. Now let's suppose you flip a coin five times in a row and each time it comes up heads. Probably tails for the sixth time, right?

Not really. The probability of coming up tails is still 50%. Is always. Every time you flip a coin. Even if heads hit 20 times in a row, the probability does not change.

This phenomenon is called (or false Monte Carlo inference). This is a failure of our thinking, proving how illogical a person is. People do not realize that the likelihood of a desired outcome does not depend on the previous outcomes of a random event. Every time a coin flies up, there is a 50% chance of getting tails.

This mental trap generates another subconscious mistake - the expectation of a positive outcome. As you know, hope dies last, so often casino players do not leave after losing, but, on the contrary, double their bets. They believe that the black streak cannot last forever and they will be able to win back. But the odds are always the same and do not depend in any way on previous failures.

We make unnecessary purchases and then justify them

How many times, returning from the store, have you been annoyed with your purchases and started coming up with rationales for them? You didn’t want to buy something, but you bought something, something is too expensive for you, but you “forked out”, something works completely differently than you expected, which means it is useless for you.

But we immediately begin to convince ourselves that these artsy, useless and ill-considered purchases were badly needed. This phenomenon is called post-shopping rationalization, or Stockholm shopper syndrome.

Social psychologists argue that we are adept at justifying stupid purchases because we want to remain consistent in our eyes and avoid a state of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort we experience when conflicting ideas or emotions collide in our head.

For example, you consider yourself a benevolent person who treats strangers well (always ready to lend a helping hand). But suddenly, seeing on the street that someone stumbled and fell, just walk by … A conflict arises between the idea of oneself and the assessment of one's deed. It becomes so unpleasant inside that you have to change your thinking. And now you no longer consider yourself to be benevolent towards strangers, so there is nothing reprehensible in your act.

It's the same with impulse buying. We justify ourselves until we begin to believe that we really need this thing, which means that we should not reproach ourselves for it. In other words, we justify ourselves until our ideas about ourselves and our actions coincide.

It is extremely difficult to deal with this, because, as a rule, we first do and then think. Therefore, there is nothing left but to rationalize after the fact. But still, when in a store a hand reaches for an unnecessary thing, try to remember that later you will have to make excuses to yourself for purchasing it.

We make decisions based on the anchor effect

Dan Ariely, Ph. D. in Cognitive Psychology and Entrepreneurship, Lecturer in Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University, Founder of the Center for Retrospective Research. Arieli is also the author of such bestsellers as "Positive Irrationality", "", "Behavioral Economics. Why people behave irrationally, and how to make money on it. His research focuses on the irrationality of the human brain when making decisions. He always clearly demonstrates the mistakes of our thinking. One of them is the anchor effect.

An anchor effect (or anchor and adjustment heuristic, anchor effect) is a feature of the estimation of numeric values (time, money, etc.) in which the estimate is biased towards the initial value. In other words, we use not an objective, but a comparative assessment (this is much more / more profitable compared to that).

Here are some examples, described by Dan Ariely, showing the anchor effect in action.

Advertisers know that the word “free” attracts people like a magnet. But free does not always mean profitable. So, one day Arieli decided to trade in sweets. Chose two varieties: Hershey's Kisses and Lindt Truffles. For the first, he set the price at 1 penny, that is, 1 cent (in the United States, a one-cent coin is usually called a penny). The price tag for the latter was 15 cents. Realizing that Lindt Truffles are premium candies and tend to cost more, shoppers thought 15 cents was a great deal and they took them.

But then Arieli went for a trick. He sold the same candy, but he had cut the cost by a cent, meaning the Kisses were now free and the Truffles were 14 cents. Sure, the 14-cent Truffles was still a super-good deal, but most buyers were now opting for the free Kisses.

The sunk cost effect is always on the alert. It prevents you from spending more than you can afford. David McRaney

Another example that Dan Ariely shared during his TED talk. When people are offered vacation options to choose from, for example a trip to Rome all inclusive or the same trip to Paris, it is rather difficult to make a decision. After all, each of these cities has its own flavor, I want to visit both there and there. But if the third option is added - a trip to Rome, but without coffee in the morning - everything changes at once. When the prospect of paying for coffee every morning looms on the horizon, the first offer (the Eternal City, where everything will be free) suddenly becomes the most attractive, even better than a trip to Paris.

Finally, a third example from Dan Ariely. The scientist offered MIT students three versions of subscription to the popular magazine The Economist: 1) the web version for $ 59; 2) printed version for $ 125; 3) electronic and printed versions for $ 125. Obviously, the last sentence is completely useless, but this was the one chosen by 84% of students. Another 16% chose the web version, but no one chose "paper".

Dan then repeated the experiment on another group of students, but without offering a print subscription. This time, most opted for the cheaper web version of the magazine.

This is the anchoring effect: we see the benefit of the proposal not as such, but only in comparing the proposals with each other. Therefore, sometimes, by limiting our choice, we can make a more rational decision.

We believe our memories more than facts

Memories are often wrong. And yet, subconsciously, we trust them more than the facts of objective reality. This translates into the effect of the availability heuristic.

The availability heuristic is a process by which a person intuitively estimates the possibility of a certain event occurring in accordance with how easily he can recall examples of such cases in his memory. Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky

For example, you have read a book. After that, you are invited to open it on any page and determine which words on it are more: ending with "th" or words with the penultimate letter "c". It goes without saying that there will be more of the latter (after all, in reflexive verbs "c" is always the penultimate letter, in addition, there are many nouns where "c" is also the penultimate letter). But based on the likelihood, you would almost certainly answer that there are more words on the page with the ending "tsya", as they are easier to notice and remember.

The accessibility heuristic is a natural thought process, but Chicago scientists have shown that if you avoid it, people will make much smarter decisions.

Memory-based experiences are very important. But one should only trust the facts. Don't make decisions based on gut instinct, always research, check and double-check the data.

We are much more stereotyped than we think

The funny thing is that the described errors of thinking are so deeply rooted in our subconscious that the question arises: are these errors? Another mental paradox provides the answer.

The human mind is so subject to stereotypes that it clings to them, even if they defy absolutely no logic.

In 1983, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky decided to test how illogical a person is with the following fictional character:

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

The researchers read this description to the subjects and asked them to answer who Linda is most likely to be: a bank teller or bank teller + an active participant in the feminist movement.

The catch is that if the second option is true, then the first is automatically too. This means that the second version is only half true: Linda may or may not be a feminist. But, unfortunately, many tend to trust more detailed descriptions and cannot understand this. 85% of those surveyed said that Linda is a cashier and a feminist.

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

I was amazed. For many years I worked in a nearby building with my fellow economists, but I could not even imagine that there was a chasm between our intellectual worlds. It is obvious to any psychologist that people are often irrational and illogical, and their tastes are not stable.

Thus, being irrational and thinking illogical is normal for a person. Especially when you consider that speaking cannot express all our thoughts. However, knowing the described subconscious brain mistakes can help us make better decisions.