Irrational prejudice or preference for one thing over another, even if it does not feel logical. Yet, human evolutionary psychology is the main cause of that. Heuristics!
The tricky thing is that even if you know them, you won't necessarily
be able to overcome them, yet knowing them may make you feel even less
in control because you know what shouldn't be the case, but
biologically, you were inclined to do it from the start. You know it's
there, but you cannot avoid. Honestly, most biases, fallacies, and heuristics
cannot be avoided.
However, if Determinism is true, then what is determined
cannot be avoided.
Biology (e.g., Will to live) and Psychology generally cannot
be avoided. Even if it can, sometimes it takes more mental effort than
it saves, like cases where avoiding stress results in more stress later in life, or the fact
that one has to go through the irrational education system even
though it's garbage just for the credentials! Thus, it works. Thus, it
is used, e.g., by Marketers. As such, it is!!! Eg .99 cent trick All
BIASES are called BIASES for a reason: probably more than half of the
population (at least for well-known biases) All fallacies too - (quick thinking)
e.g., "You too!" trap! So the version you idealize and the version you
are are likely very different.
Also, a form of sampling bias. Where do you focus on the news too much? I don't really do that anymore; most of it is not really that necessary... may lead to more stress than it's worth? For instance, one time, I got sexually assaulted by a teacher, and instead of reporting it to the police, I decided to keep it to myself for many years out of fear of how complicated legal processes are and the media implying the police are rude.
I don't regret my decision, as it was logical given the input I had at that time!! Like with an AI, my "training data" only had what pop culture showed me, and not the full legal processes, which were simply way too complicated (or costly) to even understand, plus the view that the school would punish me for this (because the teacher is a part of the school and school certainly wouldn't like the negative PR), PLUS the little perceived gain from this. I think even my parents are highly likely to feel pain in being involved with the police. Deterministically, this is one of the most logical decisions I have made in my entire life! Rather, acceptance is bliss.
In fact, usually the media documents things that are not normal (like murder), otherwise it would not be significant to document at all, so in fact in real life often you will not encounter the things mentioned in the media.
The bias to have things remain as they are.
Happens to me, i.e., me going to the same restaurant selection.
Other people are also affected by this, for instance, being a mean teacher because they chose not to change, even if they have the capacity to.
But it’s fine; it’s part of free will!
They live how they want; I live how I want (after I get out of the secondary school slavery system, of course), and then it's liberation. Though ideally, I ignore that bias because it could keep me stuck in life.
Rather, I think that this may be one factor that keeps the eternally Prussian education system in use. It doesn't change, because so many schools use this, so a school not using it may lead to them getting confused PR from parents! Status quo bias is basically resistance to change, which can sometimes be good, but sometimes also be bad.
E.g. We never saw a society with unschooled people. Thus we assume unschooling is dangerous. But school itself might be more dangerous to creativity and the drive to learn, inflicting learned helplessness, obedience, and being ruled over by others.
It is in others, as well as myself whenever judging another entity that has not been seen for their whole existence!
But it can’t be blamed, for every human suffers through this.
1. Humans by themselves are free from others’ influence.
2. But what others see is only when not by self, by definition
3. Thus an incomplete perception is born.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing, a world where you could see secrets is paradoxical and scary - I wouldn’t want people to be scared if privacy no longer exists...
Honestly, I used to think that others were crazy for misunderstanding me, and I am crazy for misunderstanding others too. Now I recognize the fact that this problem exists. That’s why I think reduced judgement would be a good thing for the ego.
One common sampling bias is thinking people are way more social than they are. The ones at home, or walking by themselves get ignored, so your brain naturally confuses stimulus amount with frequency.
Where you disproportionately hear only from people who got what they want, because the failed ones are too poorly known or too ashamed to admit it.
For instance:
School alumni, millionaire/billionaire entrepreneurs… They keep saying success is based on effort. In reality, other factors contribute too. And the ones that exert strong effort yet are mediocre are… Forgotten. I just want to know what an average life is, not a good one. (There’s no point in becoming famous; I will be targeted) Yet the ordinary’s words are forgotten into the crater of social media/wasted books, and become meaningless over time…
I really want to know the ordinary, yet social media pictures are heavily edited, and only the really good and really bad make it… You can blame social media! Now, ironically, I have to discover the average by myself (and still fail to do so)…!!!!! I was told tons of things that are unlikely to work…
I would say. In both the worlds of statistics and psychology, it causes misinformation/ misthinking due to not knowing everyone or having a representative sample of humans to see from.
Another way could be that people whose jobs have not been replaced by AI, give speeches about "AI will not replace your job!" It's right... but for them!
They may also say, "Try, try again until you succeed." However, I
would argue this is pretty universal for successors only by truism. After all, few
succeeded in one go, so isn't it fail (n times) -> succeed? So they
have indeed done exactly what they have said, by axiomatic nature.
The problem is, they may be ignoring the people who tried too many times
and realized it's not worth it to try, try again until they can succeed
due to opportunity costs, or even money costs, or the psychological toll, or the
successors just not knowing how easy it is for things like innovations
or businesses to be popular enough to succeed.
Rather, the failed never succeed; often people end up not hearing their advice, even though what NOT to do can be valuable advice in itself - when they are asked how to "succeed," they, of course, would not know how - or know how, yet complain that it didn't work. In contrast, advice from survivors often is "If you don't succeed, try again; you do." or "Don't give up until you succeed!" - which I just think is axiomatic, yet in contrast, by definition, appears to be better than no advice at all. That's why it's so damaging.
It also is often combined with sampling bias of talking about only one very successful person (also related to media bias) - for example, a story about how one person recovered from a medical illness and now is doing exceptionally well, ignoring all those who didn't. Now, it sounds extremely convincing while also not being applicable to the majority of mankind - which is why you need to realize this bias exists in the first place before you can avoid it well.
Socialization often also has a survivorship bias: you often care too much about the people that are noisy but outside your friend group, and self-shame for not being like this. However, in the times that they are quiet, or for people that barely even socialize in the first place, you treat it as insignificant.
Religion also has a survivorship bias: Religious people who THINK it helps continue it, people like me who don't get it quit, so religion seems more valid than it is.
The biggest factor is hindsight. The solution might be to think what the survivors did that the losers did not (ruling out setting big goals and such.)
By definition, survivorship bias exists - a popular YouTube video has survived to reach many people. It will be more influential (usually). An unpopular one - who perhaps did not fit YouTube's metrics - does not, even if the content is even better. Survivorship bias is macro-scale though - one can certainly find their own niche interests (as well as the masses).
Suicide: another type of "survivorship bias" - you need a really strong wil lto live to live, and of course thus due to cognitive dissonance, you refuse to acknowledge that for some, life is so extremely undesirable that they don't wanna live - or maybe call them invalid for lack of control?
Survivorship bias amongst suicide - Often the ones who talk abt suicide are the healthiest. e.g., medical professionals. Suicidal people might feel less understood than they actually are.
The dead - the ones who thought life was not living - are already dead, so they are not able to talk to the public.
Media bias - the ones who encourage suicide (maybe considering it, but have not done it yet) are treated as not fit to talk to the public 9also the risk that it can really cause the ones suicidal to snap apart. The super super super super majority of stuff has nothing to do with suicide, and even then almost everything is about prevention hotlines...
Though of course this is not about encouraging it, just some logic... In fact there is one historical example. The Apokarteron was kicked out of philosophy teacher school for actually delivering an outcome that made people realize the (perhaps truth?) that life has so much more pain than pleasure. He was a rare kind before modern stigmas. As such I think that such a survivorship bias (of living itself) will inevitably continue for humanity.
Bugs have survivorship bias by design. Companies don't focus on the hundreds of bugs they fixed, but the media does focus on the few bugs that exist. However, luckily, nowadays, games can be patched over time - especially since there would be a ton of players on the first day; any issues could be fixed quickly after release. Alternatively, popular software often have too high expectations or userbase so of course more negativity arrives on a fault.
The hardest things to EVER know are secrets, or ultra-stigma - NEVER posted or spoken of - will NEVER be known of [unless the rare collision with pre-existing thoughts has been the EXACT SAME that existed - yet u still don't know :].
Survivors comment only after they succeed (otherwise they are not a survivor). Thus they distort the way as straight - because they forgot the messy parts, or that they simplify their failures too much because otherwise dissonance will occur becuase survivors don't wnat to ba labelled as failures who only brute-forced their path through.
Sometimes for things like this you only can report if you notice. If a scam is so great nobody notices, the SCAM ITSELF survives.
It's kinda like the opposite: Only the cheats that get noticed are known. So it is in the paradoxical state where the unknown ones are really good, but most people cannot know it, so it is a bit of "it will survive, but will not spread, unlike the media people which advertise very successful people."
Integrity exists for most, but not for all. Sometimes it's trust, but the fear of cheaters not being caused caused it to plummet. Sometimes teacher-student is mutual trust, and somehow student does not want to betray teacher. But sometimes it will happen anyway.
The founder of philosophies or religions naturally perform the idea of the philosophy the best since they defined it themselves, like being the best Stoic or Christian and such.
Only the sucessful businesses are well-known, and there is way more optimism than realism in making new businesses because the million-dollar entrepreneurs spread messages and such.
Bias to believe what a person already believes, and to reject what one already believes is false. Because it indeed is less tiring if you don't have to spend effort in debate. YouTube is one example of this: Showing videos that align with your values and history (the goal is to hook you, but it can also negatively affect the viewer’s ability to see events from balanced perspectives). And as society becomes more globalized, people also tend not to reflect that things can be wrong due to fear of being the outgroup, which can further strengthen this bias.
A cognitive bias where, after noticing something new, you believe it occurs with high frequency, even though its actual frequency has not changed. For instance, if you are told to note down every Tesla you find when walking/driving, you would likely think there suddenly were a lot more Teslas when, in reality, of course, it wouldn’t be like that. This is the "illusion of frequency", because humans knowing and not knowing means a change in the frequency of actually registering the link between sights and concepts.
Humans tend to see that numbers that end in 2 or 5 are nice. I think
this likely is because of the number of fingers on human hands (2 hands
x 5 fingers), and then through evolution counting with them became
"comfortable" to people.
For instance, TV Volumes tend to feel weird if they do not end in a 2 or
a 5. Other numbers seem too "random". Some research even says that there
is slight disgust! Regardless, this is a minor case: not a big deal! So
just adhere to what you like!
Societal bias: laziness & technology use is not necessarily
laziness; it can be optimization!
LIKE, seriously,
1. Would you regress from email to physical mail?
2. From Spaced Repetition Flashcard Algorithms
capable of holding over 10,000 items on a hard drive to the Leitner
System or the absurd amount of Cornell notebooks I will devour at
the cost of knowledge?
3. If you hate AI, why
don't you just not use it? And find information from your local physical
library? (Competitors?) But then it shows it's useful...
Rather, I believe that technology makes real life seem dull in
comparison, or people are biased against people who are "always on their
phones" (even if the accuser does it himself too!)
The government makes laws; thus, although laws are generally for the
good of the people, sometimes they can be biased. This is because the
government is the one making the laws; as such, of course, they would
like to be protected by them. The law outlines how much power the
government has, but occasionally the law can give it too much power. In
fact, how much power a government has is hugely split and controversial,
and it appears there is no “right amount of power”. Sometimes, the laws
follow religious roots even when human rights prohibit those laws, like
forcing women to wear something on their heads in some muslim countries.
(Allowing in itself is totally natural, but FORCING is bad)
For instance, a “threat” to the government “nation” is opposition; it
basically prevents opposition such that the government can continue to
rule in the same ways, even if unethical, due to creating fear among rebels and also silencing
the other perspective.
And sometimes it’s just absurd, take almost every law in North Korea, banning
foreign influence and bad-mouthing among a gigantic list of other
stuff.
Rather, it’s a clash between Legal Positivism (where a law is valid
simply because a recognized authority decreed it) and Natural Law (where
a law is only valid if it is inherently just). Usually, Natural Law is
seen as more humane and ethical.
It makes the brain think it’s actually doing good, while technically “made with real fruit” can be “made with 0.1% fruit”, and “contains VITAMIN C” can be “Contains 1% of the VITAMIN C you need in a day” intentional vagueness, and also there is a overly “clean” perception of vegetables (personally I think meat is even more tasty and also has lots of protein so it’s good too)
Thinking things will turn out better than they actually do. This may be a method the brain keeps trying to motivate itself. It tends to be the normal state for people out of school. There are actually some arguments that without optimism, there would be few innovations, however, this also is a bit of survivorship bias for the things that survived.
Thinking things will turn out worse than they actually do. This is similar to the premeditation of evil. However, I think these two sometimes may not actually be biases, since reality will most likely be different from what you have thought it would be, and accusing your mind like it's flawed isn't that healthy! Expectations and reality, to a certain extent, are almost always unlike each other.
Hindsight is 20/20. The future is unpredictable. But when you look back at it, you now have full knowledge, so you of course, want yourself to act differently in a situation of adversity, which you could not have at the time. It is human nature to want things to turn out differently, yet the past is unchangeable, so acceptance might be a solution: accepting that it's determinism, it's the things you knew at that time that determined your solution, and you naturally wouldn't have known things that you only know in the future. For instance, people regretting not doing something often fail to realize they had zero interest earlier, or that it was rational to avoid the risk having known less than now.
Lots of psychology is related to the rethinking of past events. Some of this is good. But is also the cause of giving up and such. It needs to exist to shape you, but it can shape you negatively too, which is the dilemma.
A psychologically manipulative bias (for instance, waiting hours for a theme park ride, but only remembering the theme park ride instead of the waiting itself), but for a good reason (to prevent pain when looking back at the past): for most things, stuff in the middle is a bit boring. In reality, schools use it to manipulate me by having a welcoming Christmas party and also a graduation ceremony or prom. I won't be tricked this time! Mementos, like things you give/get before you/they leave, also fall into this category.
There was one experiment where 1 minute of cold water was more painful than 1 minute of cold water + 30 seconds of lesser cold water.
Some experiences have the rush after the pain so powerful that we forget the original associated pain through sheer hedonic treadmill contrast. (Back to the theme park, roller coasters are a good example of this.)
Additionally, the peak-end bias also led me to think that premeditation of evil is a good thing! To prevent disappointment by undesirable outcomes. Strangely, though, the process usually takes longer than the feeling of the result! Perhaps I was affected by this too, where the feelings of an event last for a long time after its execution!
Linking it to perfectionism, there will inevitably be an ideal. Of course, the ideal is nearly impossible most of the time. Now, I think that just accepting the way reality is determined here is because it's the peak-end bias, where I try to remember only the last moments, which can potentially hit the hardest. I hope to overcome this even though biases are said to be hard to overcome. Energy is not worth spending just to reflect on a bad end.
This is maybe why we judge a movie, or debate, mainly on its ending! Even if you know it, it affects you. A classic one.
Led me to think that pre-meditation of evil (Stoic practice) is better! To prevent disappointment from undesirable outcomes. Now, I don't even know! The process usually takes longer than the feeling of the result!
Perfectionism: THERE will inevitably be an ideal. Of course, an ideal is near-impossible by math. I heard from Raj, and now I kinda agree that just accepting the way reality is determined here is because it's the peak-end bias, where I try to remember only the last moments. I hope to overcome this even though biases are said to be hard to overcome. Energy is not worth spending just to biasedly reflect on a bad end.
Graduation ceremony and/or celebration. Did not have it when one needs it the most (exams relief?) Rather it's a way to brainwash "effort" into literally every sentence and silence parents and students on effort justification!
Linked to peak-end, "end" - for instance, if I remember the last time I tried a food, I hated it (even though I liked it before), I might not do that again for a while... And then, due to the hedonic treadmill and nostalgia bias (lol) It ended up better than I thought a few months later . Biases (or I think they are inherent human mind thinking methods now) surely connect.
Basically just absorbing the culture around you. This is linked to the basics of naturally conforming to your group.
And then there is the WEIRD bias: Inherited culture is overwhelmingly from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies.
AI also falls for this: Most English training data is from the United States, so by the process of "more data," its outputs sometimes even assume you are there unless proven otherwise.
Where you think others, or your future self, have the same ideas and methods of thinking/living as current YOU. This comes from the fact that you can only see the present - not the future - nor others' brains.
Prefering old stuff - though there is also the bias that what the future remembers of the past is only what survived.
Feeling like a failure even when very close to total perfection. This is likely due to school: the certification only arrives when you graduate - plus some games also demand doing everything. And it likely is due to the fact social media people would complain about the missed-out parts (FOMO arrives). This is very close to perfecionism bias.
Historical stuff that made white people be preferred over black people, probably due to some very clever (and mean) propagandas, I'm glad that's no longer a thing nowadays, it makes no sense to rank worth based on skin color!
People being convinced that authority has strength. This comes from a real fear of punishment. There is also something called the argument from authority (logical fallacy). This comes from the fact that most of the stuff they say is opinions, not facts. Some authorities are good. Some are bad! And some treat people like crap! Which is sad. The problem is that there is no even somewhat objective way to measure non-stupidity, especially if the future is unknown...
Inevitably: power, but also love; fear of them getting lost also impacts their freedom... threaten them with "love" (also whipping in the past, or taking their computer) -taking away what they like is a poor motivator to do what they hate
parents love their children. Some take pictures of them. Is the problem consent? Consent to upload. And like they keep loving, or hating (but still loving), their kids. Like they are important. But if all kids are important, none are (relatively).
Also, a big lie is that they like every child equally.
Teachers think sleep can be fixed, but not really.
Is teacher bias also due to the education system; probably?
Like teachers treat the poor poorly in some cases, and are more biased towards the average (Which may not be a bias irrc)
Teachers sometimes also forget how hard it is to learn, because they already learned and know how to teach and must be very good at their subject by meritocracy, sampling bias in that students treat it like it's common knowledge amongst most people, when in reality some may not know, some may find it hard to learn...
This devalues fun stuff so much, including the really gigantic source Wikipedia! Essentially, this thing devalues knowledge itself. This is where knowledge is treated even like a negative thing (the term "information overload" wouldn't exist if not for that). This ignores the fact that it could be used in the future; even if not, more information means more chances that at least a small amount can match with your current problem! And some psychology knowledge is useful for the really "enlightening" prospect of understanding yourself (as some parts, like this biases article itself, are REALLY applicable to most people)!
I am merely a 17-year-old. I have learned a ton from the Internet and YouTube and thinking, but I have to admit I literally have no voting power, or power to change the macrosociological problem of this world as a whole, nor have I experienced how the workplace is, so I am just inferring from the fact that it is "high school all over again" or such. The Dunning-Kruger effect may apply: The more I write, the more I realize I have gaps - because nobody is perfect.
Action bias also tricks the brain into thinking more can/will be solved than actually. And when it realizes that, after years of problem solving still not like that, it self-blames or experiences cognitive dissonance. For instance, I thought the noise level at school would be solved after 15 years. Nope. It's pretty ridiculous in hindsight that I thought I could control people's desires to make noises when even most school teachers cannot do that.