Our minds set up many traps for us. Unless we’re aware of them, these traps can seriously hinder our ability to think rationally, leading us to bad reasoning and making stupid decisions. Features of our minds that are meant to help us may, eventually, get us into trouble.
Here are the first 5 of the most harmful of these traps and how to avoid each one of them.
1. The Anchoring Trap: Over-Relying on First Thoughts
“Is the population of Turkey greater than 35 million? What’s your best estimate?” Researchers asked this question to a group of people, and the estimates were seldom too far off 35 million. The same question was posed to a second group, but this time using 100 million as the starting point. Although both figures were arbitrary, the estimates from the ’100 million’ group were, without fail, concomitantly higher than those in the ’35 million’ group. (for the curious, here’s the answer.)
Lesson: Your starting point can heavily bias your thinking: initial impressions, ideas, estimates or data “anchor” subsequent thoughts.
This trap is particularly dangerous as it’s deliberately used in many occasions, such as by experienced salesmen, who will show you a higher-priced item first, “anchoring” that price in your mind, for example.
What can you do about it?
- Always view a problem from different perspectives. Avoid being stuck with a single starting point. Work on your problem statement before going down a solution path.
- Think on your own before consulting others. Get as much data as possible and explore some conclusions by yourself before getting influenced by other people’s anchors.
- Seek information from a wide variety of sources. Get many opinions and broaden your frame of reference. Avoid being limited to a single point of view.
2. The Status Quo Trap: Keeping on Keeping On
In one experiment a group of people were randomly given one of two gifts — half received a decorated mug, the other half a large Swiss chocolate bar. They were then told that they could effortlessly exchange one gift for the other. Logic tells us that about half of people would not get the gift they prefered and would hence exchange it, but in fact only 10% did!
We tend to repeat established behaviors, unless we are given the right incentives to entice us to change them. The status quo automatically has an advantage over every other alternative.
What can you do about it?
- Consider the status quo as just another alternative. Don’t get caught in the ‘current vs. others’ mindset. Ask yourself if you would choose your current situation if it weren’t the status quo.
- Know your objectives. Be explicit about them and evaluate objectively if the current state of affairs serves them well.
- Avoid exaggerating switching costs. They frequently are not as bad as we tend to assume.
3. The Sunk Cost Trap: Protecting Earlier Choices
You pre-ordered a non-refundable ticket to a basketball game. On the night of the game, you’re tired and there’s a blizzard raging outside. You regret the fact that you bought the ticket because, frankly, you would prefer to stay at home, light up your fireplace and comfortably watch the game on TV. What would you do?
It may be hard to admit, but staying at home is the best choice here. The money for the ticket is already gone regardless of the alternative you choose: it’s a sunk cost, and it shouldn’t influence your decision.
(This example is from an earlier article which focuses entirely on the sunk cost effect. Check it out if you want to know more.)
What can you do about it?
- Be OK with making mistakes. Examine why admitting to earlier mistakes distresses you. Nobody is immune to errors, so you shouldn’t make a big deal out of it — just make sure you learn from them!
- Listen to people who were not involved in the earlier decisions. Find people who are not emotionally committed to past decisions and ask their opinion.
- Focus on your goals. We make decisions in order to reach goals. Don’t become attached to the particular series of steps you took towards that goal; always consider how you can better fulfill that goal from now on.
4. The Confirmation Trap: Seeing What You Want to See
You feel the stock market will be going down and that now may be a good time to sell your stock. Just to be reassured of your hunch, you call a friend that has just sold all her stock to find out her reasons.
Congratulations, you have just fallen into the Confirmation Trap: looking for information that will most likely support your initial point of view — while conveniently avoiding information that challenges it.
This confirmation bias affects not only where you go to collect evidence, but also how you interpret the data: we are much less critical of arguments that support our initial ideas and much more resistant to arguments against them.
No matter how neutral we think we are when first tackling a decision, our brains always decide — intuitively — on an alternative right away, making us subject to this trap virtually at all times.
What can you do about it?
- Expose yourself to conflicting information. Examine all evidence with equal rigor. Don’t be soft on disconfirmatory evidence. Know what you are about: Searching for alternatives or looking for reassurance!
- Get a devil’s advocate. Find someone you respect to argue against the decision you’re contemplating making. If you can’t find one, build the counterarguments yourself. Always consider the other positions with an open mind (taking into account the other mind traps we are discussing here, by the way).
- Don’t ask leading questions. When asking for advice, make neutral questions to avoid people merely confirming your biases. “What should I do with my stocks?” works better than “Should I sell my stocks today?”
5. The Incomplete Information Trap: Review Your Assumptions
Harry is an introverted guy. We know that he is either a librarian or a salesman. Which one do you think he most probably is?
Of course, we may be tempted to think he’s almost certainly a librarian. Haven’t we been conditioned to think of salesmen as having outgoing, if not pushy, personalities? Too bad this reasoning may be dead wrong (or at least incomplete).
This conclusion neglects the fact that salesmen outnumber librarians about 100 to 1. Before you even consider Harry’s character traits, you should have assigned only a 1% chance that he’s a librarian. (That means that even if all librarians are introverted, all it takes is 1% of introverts among the salesmen to make the chances higher for Harry being a salesman.)
That’s just one example of how overlooking a simple data element can make our intuitions go completely astray. We keep mental images — simplifications of reality — that make we jump to conclusions before questioning assumptions or checking whether we have enough information.
What can you do about it?
- Make your assumptions explicit. Don’t take a problem statement as it is. Keep in mind that for every problem you’re using implicit information — your assumptions. It’s usually not hard to check the validity of assumptions, but first you need to know what they are.
- Always favor hard data over mental simplifications. Our preconceptions — such as stereotypes — can be useful in many situations, but we should always be careful to not over-rely on them. When given the choice, always prefer hard data.
For five more thinking traps, check out part II.
Luciano,
Wow, the power of this enlightened thinking is fantastic. I loved reading it. We connect.
The comments are fantastic too. Learned from them as well.
I’m in aha with a loss of words. So, all I can say right now is Thank You! I look forward to reading more.
I am curious about another aspect: is there a pattern to ‘good’ intuitive decisions also?
There is a small problem with #2. Give the items to people. Absent any other information we should assume that 1/3 got what they want, 1/3 wanted the other, and 1/3 did not care. Though, actually, this is just as bloody wrong as the 50/50 claim. That we can list alternatives does not mean they are equally likely. What is really wrong is your description. We can assume that the group was randomly divided. Therefore as many on both sides preferred chocolate and as many preferred the cup. So we have to cross-compare those that changed. But we still have to consider those that don’t care.
Why do you think the 50/50 claim is wrong?
Note that I’m not saying in the article that 50% of people want the decorated mug and 50% want the chocolate bar. The actual percentages may vary as you like (90/10, 40/60, 1/99). Regardless of the distribution, when you divide the group randomly, 50% (in average) won’t get what they want. That 50 doesn’t relate to the people’s choices, but with the randomness of the sample. Does that make sense?
Regarding those people that don’t care, you’re right — they certainly do exist and, yes, the experiment doesn’t take that into account.
But still, it’s hard for me to believe that so many people wouldn’t have a clear preference if the two options were presented simultaneously (instead of one and then a possibility for exchange).
Thanks Matt for adding to the discussion! Love to have smart, participating readers such as you around!
One of the best blog posts I have ever seen. Can’t wait to see the rest. I specially liked the part of validating the assumptions. Its also termed as internal dialogue in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).
Just one recommendation, the name of the topic! May be a critical thinking error would be more appropriate than the trap. However, it’s the author’s liberty to name his brainchild.
Finally, very important practical lessons are presented here. What I liked most is the problem and solution approach. Number of solutions provided and is really encouraging.
Matt Silb (and others) take a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....I&NR=1
He talks about problem #2 too.
Thanks for the video link, Svend… I just can’t get enough of Dan Ariely! Highly recommended!
Focusing on goals is a key to success. By keeping you min on the outcome you want instead of the one you don’t want. Your mind will become calm, positive and clear.
Success is goals and all else in commentary
– Brian tracy
This article is a great one to read on. I like the way it explains the 10 points quite simply. Nice work
An example of how to break #2 (Status Quo) would be Peter Drucker’s questions to Jack Welch (then CEO of GE) “If you weren’t already in (this business), would you enter into it today?” and “if the answer is no, what are you going to do about it?”
That’s a great question to ask, Simon.
In addition to illustrating the status quo trap, I believe it also perfectly illustrates the sunk cost trap (#3) — be inclined to continue in your particular business just because you’re ‘already there’.
Thanks for sharing!
I do not have a problem with your main points but i think your logic in the last example is a bit off. We do not know that he is a salesman or if he is a librarian therefore we need to look at the statistics of introverts and what percentage of them are either librarians and what percent are salesman. Knowing what percent of salesmen or what percent of librarians are introverts does not help us.
Hi Will,
Indeed, the statistics of how many introverts are librarians and how many are salesmen would be the best option here. Knowing what percent of salesmen and what percent of librarians are introverts may not solve the problem as you say, but I disagree it does not help us at all.
From the article:
This percentage at least hints us that our “obvious” first conclusion may be wrong.
In the end, even if the data is not 100% conclusive, the point is: always consider data and don’t over-rely on stereotypes and preconceptions.
Thanks for your thoughts!
The sunk cost trap is what really gets me. When I’ve already spent so much time and effort on a business strategy or on learning something new, it’s so difficult to admit that it’s ineffective and to just pull up ties and try something new. But in the long run, it ends up saving a lot of continued wasted time and effort. I’m finally getting to a point in my life where I can be ok with making mistakes
I have seen so many people who fit in the sunk cost trap (I know I have done it myself a few times). People seem to commit to an idea and then just cannot let go of it even when evidence against their original decision is staring them in the face. We have often discussed this phenomenon around our house.
I see people falling in the sunk cost trap almost every day, Ann! It’s really one of the most prevalent thinking traps for sure.
Isn’t it great to be more aware of our own shortcomings?
wouldn’t this article be a form/type of trap as well?….
Maybe…
What makes you think that?
Thanx Mr.Luciano..
waz a great article.
Does this methodology work for marriages?
Oh, I’m positive all the above traps apply to marriages!
Rereading the article with that idea in mind makes it quite humorous, actually…
I’m not so sure we have to be rigorously questioning our instincts all the time. Frequently it doesn’t matter a wit.
You’re absolutely right about that! For my opinion, check out the very last point I made in the second part of this article. Thanks!
Great post.
I kind of stumbled upon this page but still, it seems like a area where people enjoy the thought process. that being said, i’m shocked how many of you OVER thought it! its things we tend towards, yet i see things like, how do you prove it? where do you get your facts? just take some time and read it, think about the human condition and stop dissecting, you’ll see it’s a common, generalised article on people that allows the reader some introspection
How about those ruthless mind? A good way to trap us all and stumble up on so many different ideas. Sadly, all of us rely on the next light bulb to mend the first one and appear all of a sudden in to the season finale within our brain we did not realise the judgemental were becoming our current. This page is excellent to give us some kind of deep thought to take action in the perspective of first thinking. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting article and I very much like and respect your open and accepting attitude towards all points of view.
For me it comes down whether one makes informed judgments or not. I’m always wary of being manipulated by politicians, statistics, news media, and I try to keep an open mind on everything whether it’s about flawed statistics or assumptions made about someone’s personality and background.
It’s so important to be aware of the insidiousness of flawed statistics, misrepresentations, bigotry couched in terms to appeal to the frightened, people who seek to exclude some based on appearance or religion or whatever else they want to mark as “different”
I’ve learned a lot from this piece though, and can build on my baseline. Thanks – looking forward to more.
Hi Suzanne,
Yes, the sad part is that many people know about these tricks and use them deliberately to trick our unprepared minds. So yes, if this wasn’t bad enough already, people are actually using this stuff to manipulate us…
The sad part is not many of us will think back to this and catch ourselves. I do some of this without even thinking about it. Very interesting tho.
That’s true, Tyler.
Being 100% of these is not as easy as it seems, but knowing about these traps and getting used to think more about them does help us identify them more easily.
Nowadays I’m able to catch them much more often than before — although I’m sure I still fall on them many other times!
The trick is to keep practicing and getting better.
A fantastic article and well worth the read. Thanks so much for sharing. Bookmarked for future reference!
Great post and open up my mind.I’ll try to keep practice.
For #5,
Yes there are more salesman than librarians, but how many of those salesman have introverted personalities? I would say around 5%, leaving the librarians with a much better than 1% chance of being the introverted person, correct?
1% is the chance of him being a librarian without any knowledge of his character traits.
If 5% of salesmen are introverted and salesmen outnumber librarians about 100 to 1, it means that even if all librarians were introverted, there would still be 5 introverted salesmen for each introverted librarian.
So, yes, the number is higher than 1%, but it’s still defies by a large amount what intuition says.
i like that, thanks, i’ll have to reconsider some of my stances now
Great posting and challenges to making rational decisions. I have copied and will distribute to my next Applied Creative Thinking class at College. But whoops, I noticed your broken incandescent light bulb for a headline photo and then your Compact Florescent Light icon to suggest change? But why not show a broken CFL bulb? Oh,I remember why, if you break a CFL bulb you are exposing yourself to toxic Mercury vapor in these bulbs. The EPA advises you to leave the room for at least 20 minutes to let it ventilate. Then get some rubber gloves and an airtight plastic bag and get ready for a complicated clean-up. No you can’t just vacuum up the broken CFL bulb. Finally get ready for a trip to a hazardous waste disposal location that will accept your broken bulb.
Now I’m wondering about how well thought-out this use of the CFL icon for such an otherwise outstanding article. I’m thinking a look at two of your own defined thinking traps are in order: #5 ” The Incomplete Information Trap: Review your Assumptions” and # 6. “The Conformity Trap: Everybody Else is Doing It”
Interesting. Are you saying that the expected disadvantages of CFLs outweigh their expected benefits over incandescent light bulbs?
Yes, and I haven’t even touched on the poor quality of the CFL light compared to incandescent. Incandescent bulbs typically have a CRI (Color Rating Index) of 95 or higher (sunlight is considered 100). The basic cool white florescent tubes found in most schools and institutions has a rating of 70 to 75. Many people complain of headaches and even migraines from such lighting. Even the so called extremely expensive daylight florescent tubes barely reach 80.
Haven’t seen any CRI numbers on the CFL’s (I wonder why?) but I’ve tested 5 or 6 different types (ranging from cool white, to warm light to daylight) and none come anywhere close to a cheap 50 cent incandescent bulb in light quality. Compare for yourself.
The only place I would use a CFL is on an exterior porch or garage where I didn’t need to look at it- and then I’d be mighty careful not to drop it.
The irony is that Congress has passed law that in 2012 will basically outlaw the sale of incandescent bulbs – forcing us all to use the much more expensive and dangerous CFLs. I wonder why GE, Phillips and the other CFL bulb marketers would endorse such regulation? Do you really think it is because they are so “green?” Or do you suppose it has anything to do with the profit on a $3 bulb vs. the profit on a 50 cent bulb?
Perhaps LED technology will eventually surpass CFLs – without the detrimental mercury and human physiological impact. Right now I’m typing this under an LED lamp. (Unfortunately the color is a little to cold and white for me). In the meantime stock up on the incandescent bulbs – before it is illegal to sell them.
There’s never a perfect alternative, any alternative is going to have disadvantages if we look selectively. The question was not whether CFLs have selective disadvantages over traditional bulbs, but whether overall the sum of disadvantages outweigh the sum of benefits. Are you saying the CFLs are not cost effective when we add the health costs?
Yes, I’m saying that CFLs are not net cost effective when you consider the negative health effects, negative psychological effects, poor aesthetics and the growing negative environmental effects when literally millions of these bulbs are unwittingly thrown into the trash and the mercury ends up in landfills and then in our water. Like so many well-intended government mandates, the proponents fail to consider such secondary impacts – and in this case, these secondary impacts far outweigh the alleged advantages.
Now if people still want to buy CFL’s on their own – that’s a risk that I think they should be able to take. However, when they impose costs on the rest of us (ie mercury) then that’s where we need to have them bear the costs. (rather than encouraging their use, tax their use to pay for recycling, clean up and disposal?)
PS: I am a college professor with a minor in economics and architecture, and a major in Urban Planning, I have taught Lighting and Building systems for Interior Designers. From a practical matter, I also do not turn on the florescent lights in any of my classes and instead use incandescent flood and spots. The color quality is far superior for my color theory and drawing classes and the class atmosphere is noticeably much more relaxed. But don’t take my word for it – do some research on health impacts of CFLs or psychological impacts of lighting and make your own decision – maybe you’ll still come up with a different decision than mine.
“Thinking Trap #5.The Incomplete Information Trap: Review Your Assumptions” – expose yourself to conflicting information and get a Devils advocate (me?)
OK, I did my homework and researched the topic using some of the tips in the article. To be honest I used to be dismissive of CFLs, but maybe not so much now.
Interestingly enough traditional incandescent bulbs contribute more than CFLs to the release of mercury in the environment. It happens that burning coal to generate electricity releases mercury in the atmosphere. 49% of the electricity in the US comes from coal. 68% in China. These are the two biggest consumers of electricity in the world. When you factor the proportion that coal participates in the generation of electricity, plus the higher consumption and typically shorter lifespan of incandescent bulbs, it turns out that a equivalent CFL (i.e., same luminous power) would still release less mercury in the environment even if we threw its entire content right into the air (which of course we don’t since we try to collect and process as many as possible). Even when we account for the extra energy expenditure manufacturing and disposing the bulbs, CFLs still come out ahead. And that’s only about mercury. There’re other nasty emissions at power plants that more energy efficient devices help curb.
Of course CFLs release mercury in a much faster rate, but only when they break. Even then the concentration is unlikely to cause harm in normal conditions. They do require a little more care though, but at the end they’re better to the environment in the long run and represent no exceptional risk of intoxication in the short run.
As for other health issues, here’s a site with good information on the topic: http://copublications.greenfac.....ases.htm#0. Bottom line is, there seems to be some correlation in exceptional cases, but no final conclusions (as usual more research is needed). However, overall the majority of the people don’t seem to have problems with the light, and CFLs can be an efficient and cost-effective replacement for traditional bulbs in most applications.
Funny thing happened. I was going to change the lamp in a lampshade in my living room for a CFL. I wanted to see if I could notice the difference in the quality of light to have a more informed opinion about CFLs. This lamp is probably the one that stays on the longest in the evenings, and we spend a lot of time in that area of the house. It turns out that the lamp was already a CFL bulb! It has been for a few years. My wife changed it. Then I went to check around the house and found that many of our lamps are CFLs. I didn’t even know it. I tried to see if I could at least detect the flickering now that I know they’re there, but I can’t. OK, maybe I’m an uneducated lightening-illiterate brute who can’t perceive the awfulness of fluorescent light, but you know what, I don’t care, and I wonder how many people do. I’d be interested on seeing a properly conduced double-blind test on the matter. What I do care, however, is about saving money and resources. I still think that replacing bulbs is not the top thing one can do to help the environment, and I concede there’s some fad and buzz around the technology, but I’m happy to make the change and do at least this much.
the given example about “status quo trap” is a little misleading, imho. it’s not like %50 percent likes cofee mugs, and the other %50 percent likes swiss chocolates. because: first, these two are not comparable, they’re not in the same league. second, even if they were comparable, people could be indifferent about having one or another. if people could reach the other alternatives that would benefit them subjectively and if they could do that effortlessly, they would simply do it. if someone chooses “status quo” over other better alternatives, it means there’s a price for “change”. the background of this the rational is subjective though.
The example does not say that 50% percent prefer coffee mugs over chocolate bars. It says that 50% of the people would exchange gifts, which is a very different claim.
For more info, I’ve addressed this in a previous comment.
Great series of articles.