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.
What a great post! I learned so much here and I can’t wait for Part 2!
This article contains all experiments from a cognitive psychology textbook that I used at bard College. Very easy to understand format of a difficult subject, great job
Hi Luciano: Regarding your first point, I’m a lawyer and I used to do arbitrations. The way in which you frame the issue that is presented to the arbitrator can have a huge impact on the case. So yes, it’s very important to be aware of anchoring.
Hi Marelisa, thanks for stopping by!
I don’t have any experience in the Law profession field, but I bet many lawyers are successful more because of their knowledge of the human psyche than the knowledge of Law per se.
You always do good work Luciano. I enjoyed this one and am looking forward to the second part.
Thanks!
Stephen
Very insightful post Luciano. I just read Malcom Gladwell’s book blink and it seemed to talk alot about these mental traps. This post does a great job exploring those in detail.
Hi Luciano
This is a great post and defintitely one of the best of the week. Looking forward to reading part 2.
thanks Mr.Luciano, i’m really benefit from these amazing words, and you light me up on some of my actions. because before i used to think that nothing can affect my decision but there’s diffrent traps as you mentioned..
*waiting for the second part*
bestwishes,
Nada
love the post. too bad the people who most need to read it never will…
Why not forward this article to them?
Love it.
Yeah, the people who need this information the most will never see it.
Too bad.
And most of the people who see it , won’t use it.
Wonderful post. Simple rules for clear, rational thought.
Awesome article. I love #1… anchoring the question for the desired answer is fascinating. And makes so much sense. I look forward to part two!
Devil’s advocate. That point especially got me thinking of who I can ask to become one. Thanks Luciano, wonderful article. I’m looking forward to the second part.
Robert
Hey Robert,
It shouldn’t be that hard to find a devil’s advocate. What I’ve found is that once you give people permission to tear your ideas apart, they’ll gladly do it.
Good luck!
It is so easy to get caught, or really, catch ourselves, in one or more of those unproductive, self destructive thinking patterns. It is especially helpful to see them listed and named, it makes it easier for me to identify them when i see myself doing them.
Even more, putting forward solutions to each is extremely helpful and useful.
There are many times when upon reflection we can see the fallacies that guided our flawed decision making. Your post will be helpful to me and many others to see these thinking patterns as we engage in the in order to find a more productive way of thinking.
Some of these are good, some of these are not so good, and others are down right terrible. Many of your examples are weak and the studies you highlight sound poorly conducted. I’m not interested in going into specifics, but the final point really struck a cord. You suggest sticking to hard data as if it is more reliable than stereotypes, using the example of the introvert. First, statistics are INCREDIBLY easy to fudge, manipulate, or down right lie about. Statistics are a terrible way to make decisions. Secondly, people tend only to do what they are good at doing. Being a salesman requires a set of skills that an introvert PROBABLY would not contain. Sure, being a librarian does not require introvertedness, but it seems a more logical decision for the man. An average introvert would not be a successful average salesman.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”, or so they say.
Yes, you’re right — statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate.
But I wouldn’t say that they’re “a terrible way to make decisions” because of that. For me, it only means that people should be educated on how to interpret statistics correctly and, of course, that there are also many traps to avoid while there.
I believe this makes an excellent seed for a future article on “statistics traps”. That may be useful to a lot of people. Thanks for the idea!
Regarding your second point, I agree with it 100% (I just don’t understand if it’s is supposed to be an objection to the article. If it is, I don’t see how it invalidates the data in there.)
The quote is of Benjamin Disraeli.
Thanks! That quote is going straight to my favorites collection (it should already be there by now).
Dude, why are you so mean?
These are actually some of the studies they conducted, and the ideas they interpret from it. It’s up to everyone to choose to believe it or not.
I actually know two librarians who are not introverted at all. They are both quite social and party pretty hard. I think the point we should take away from this mental trap example is that you just never know, because there’s a lot of information you don’t about a situation. Statistics aside, working from stereotypes may be convenient but I find that it is a dismissive device. It’s an excuse to not get to know and understand people. If we ask a few questions about the man in the example we might have made a better guess at what he actually does for a living.
Good point — I agree with you. In the example, an answer is requested forcefully — without giving away much information. In real life, however, you usually do have the chance to ask questions and know more — if you’re not lazy to rely on the stereotype only.
Thanks for your contribution!
i suffered a brain injury a few (short) years back and, when tested a few months out, was found to suffer a few nasty deficiencies, among them decision making. then i go and get a job at the patent office, where all i do is search and analyze and make decisions by way of making comparisons. i’ve needed a list just like this. i truly appreciate it. thank you.
Ahhhhhh…. this explains a lot.
hey they were slow before me!
Nice article. Enjoyed going through it. May be easier to preach than practice. Still it is better to keep in mind.
Eagerly waiting for part 2.
The thing that is always lacking in this kind of pseudo-scientific blog post is REFERENCES. You mention a group study with the population of Turkey. What study? by whom? when was it done? where was it published? where is the URL to the study? And the same goes for everything else you say. Without references, it seems as if what you wrote just came out of your insightful mind. But the truth is you are just communicating things that others have discovered and wrote about before.
It is this kind of poor (although interesting) article that makes the internet a source of unreliable, pseudo-scientific, information. Unless you go to really scientific sources, but then those are quite old-fashioned and their sites look like crap.
Nice to have inquisitive readers around!
I had planned to add all the references to the second part of the article. But yes, on second thought, leaving the references out of this first part was probably a mistake.
For me, it’s obvious that this information came from published research, and sometimes we forget that that’s not the case for those reading about this for the first time. I’ll review the article and add references where applicable.
Thanks!
Hey, you are watching TED and copy stuff. Or you have it from a book – I know the list and all the reasons in this sequence. Should have bookmarked it. But hey, everybody does that. I am shure that it is not Philip Zimbardo but you can write about his thoughts next time (maybe in three parts, the third is for the link to TED or a amazon-affiliate-linked-book). Would Seth godin do this?
I think, he would first post the thoughts of somebody else and link there and in the same artikle, he would write his own thoughts. So, there you are, not only lite copy-thingy but deep and related things together with a pro and with no chance for such stupid critisism like mine in a poor english like this.
Besides all this, I like your blog and what you are doing here, thumbs up!
I can’t speak for all the examples referenced, but the final one (librarian/salesman) is also used in a book – Gut Feelings: Intelligence of the Unconscious. This book provides similar examples to those provided here.
Interestingly, that book represents good counterpoints to the issues mentioned in this blog. It argues that our gut is right more often than those in favor of rationalization would have us believe. It traces many of our daily (and successful) decisions back to practical application of heuristics and rules of thumb. It is up to the reader to decide if the research and arguments presented in the book hold weight, or if personal experience and lessons learned suggest that deliberate rationalizations lead to better decisions.
I haven’t seen this book, but it looks interesting. The book I took the librarian/salesmam example from: Smart Choices (a great book I highly recommend).
These “traps” are not always harmful — in fact, they’re quite useful as rules of thumb. For snap decisions, I believe they’re essential. But I also believe that for more elaborate and thoughtful decisions (the kind of decisions our brains aren’t prepared yet to take intuitively), being aware of these traps is immensely useful.
But, yes, of course, readers should always decide on their own. After all, that’s why we have brains for, right?
Thanks for your comment!
So, I agree both that this is compelling and interesting, and that more sources would be helpful.
I consult and teach at Northwestern, and a good place to dig deeper might be to explore the work of Chris Argyis and the Ladder of Inference. Also, some amazing work out there around meta-cognition (yes, wikipedia a great place to start). A free website, hr.com can provide more information: http://www.hr.com/sfs?t=/conte.....;active=no
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I was definitely in each of those traps many times. Looking forward for the 2nd part of it.
Thanks
Nice stuff. Enjoyed reading. These are all discernible if we just keep our eyes open and minds alert.
When people criticize our ideas it can lead to re-evaluation, improvement and newer discoveries. But in real life we’re humans with emotions. The motivation for criticizing and the spirit in which it’s done makes all the difference. The example in the confirmation trap could’ve worked better if it’d been more illustrative.
I know a salesman who’s very extrovert in work situations but rather introvert in private life.
Am looking forward to part 2.
Excellent!
Part 2 please…
Hey Luciano, this is a very useful list. I’m not particularly concerned on validity of the studies, as much as these bring my awareness to thinking traps which I might be falling into. Stumbled!
Luciano, Very nice job in teaching people with absolutely no conscience how to think constructively. All you are doing is arming people who should be allowed to perish from their inferior judgments.
People do not make inadequate decisions or come to inferior assumptions because they have the good of others in their heart…they come to those decisions for the exact opposite reasons usually.
Their thoughts are for me, me, me and mine. Their only concerns are for their precious possessions and still they sit on fat butts and pat you on the back as they slobber and wait for your next installment.
Hoping that you will teach them…what? The meaning of their miserable lives? Or maybe why they are so miserable? What?
Personally I think they are waiting for your next installment because you have assembled ’some psychological tests’ about human behavior – forget the fact that you failed to quote your sources – and because these tests appear to show them some insight into human behaviour to which only they are privy, they can enjoy feeling superior to someone for once in their miserable lives.
You are doing these people a vast disservice and for that I applaud you. They deserve it for failing to think.
“…people who should be allowed to perish from their inferior judgments.”
Did you decide to make this comment with ‘the good of others in your heart?’
Nice list I have some of my own traps I have
thought about over the years. Some of them
might be equal to yours.
The over generalization trap:
Your generalize for a few bad persons
to the rest of the group.
This is the logical error in all racism.
The “we are the best” trap:
Your say that something is the best
,but if asked how your messure that
it is the best, you don’t have an answer.
Then your might be wrong, since your don’t
have a method to actually determine if it is wrong. All kind of positive feel good propaganda falls under this trap.
The “it is not possible” trap:
You say something is not possible.
If your say something is possible
it is most of the time because
your have knowledge about how it is done.
So your are talking about a subject that
your have personally knowledge about.
But personally knowledge is limited.
If your say “it is not possible” your
are potentially talking about all knowledge.
include all knowledge that your don’t have
and including knowledge the humankind don’t have. That it is highly possible that your
just don’t have the knowledge that makes it
possible.
Learning argument mapping have helped
me be more precise when I argue. Here
is 2 links. There tutorial is great
for learning argument mapping.
I like argument mapping so much that
I think it should be taught in primary
schools.
http://www.austhink.org/critic.....pping.html
http://austhink.com/reason/tutorials/
Argument mapping looks very interesting! I start by going through the tutorials in your first link.
The traps you mention are all very valid, and you’ll notice a little bit of those in part 2 of the article. Thanks for sharing your traps and the links!
those aren’t half bad, i like that
Baseball isn’t played in the winter…and if a blizzard were to break out they would cancel the game.
Basketball, not baseball
great insights into the thought process, the references will certainly be appreciated, when do we get the rest?
Can not thank you enough . I look forward to the next article . I consider joining litemind is the wisest decision I’ve ever taken . Thank you .
Sure, this is nice and all, but what if you’re a Rush Limbaugh “dittohead”, for instance, or some Taliban dickhead? Ever try to get through to one of those people?
You are one hell of a man… Just what I need, would appreciate if delivered more examples for dumb spend thrift people like me… When is the part 2???????
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence by Robert Pirsig
Hey, I love that book!
Nice advice. But they’re easier blogged than done. That’s why we keep on falling for those traps.
Excellent post, looking forward to part2:)
I like this a lot that is very interesting i have fell trap to all of those I’m sure. I dont see why people are criticizing the examples after all they are examples? I dont think they need to be referenced at all they are valid examples and put your point across sufficiently.
That’s a great list. What I’ve found most helpful is the practice of free thinking and stepping back from thought throughout my day.
What I mean here is striving to let go, and not be stuck on old ideas or thoughts. The example of the sunk payment is a great one, and if one can get really good at being fluid here and not being so attached to “lost money” the skill will translate into other areas of life as well.
I truly believe if we allow our minds to be as free as possible, and treat our thinking as an experience we’re having but not necessarily something we must always identify with, we enjoy greater freedom and easier happiness.
Great blog you have here. I’ll check back for part 2 of this piece!
The phrase ‘Get out of your own way’ comes to mind. Thanks for exposing my inner thought processes
Population of Turkey is 70 million. I’am from Turkey
This is brilliant. I am only 20 and I have thought about this already. I guess that is why i do not have a lot of friends. Everyone seems to follow everybody else’s idea on how to react to different life experiences and what to do in different situations and they are all the same, influenced by each other, turning into one big mess of a person. This post made my thougts so much clearer! Thanks heaps!
I am so guilty of over-relying on first thoughts.
That confirmation trap is one that it sure isn’t appealing to see others get into. It leads to somewhat of a dead-end cycle(or cul-de-sac of discussion). That part is hilarious where it says “Congratulations, you have just fallen into the Confirmation Trap”.
Assisting others into getting into these traps works well in marketing. Playing off someone’s weakness in being stuck maintaining the status quo or further confirming something they have confirmed to themselves through that confirmation trap are two competitively manipulative ways of making a sale.
These are all traps that I have found myself floundering in from time to time. It is difficult to mentally work through each of the common traps in our mind to make sure we are making the right decision.
For me avoiding the first impulse is the key. Thinking everything beyond the first step or two is essential. Although I must watch out for over thinking.
Great post! I’m looking forward to the next one.
Very interesting observations. Litemind’s issues are very relevant – some more than others. I have tried to link some of my corporate and personal experiences to these mind traps. Leave me a message if you agree or disagree with my views.
Great post, I’m sure you and others who read this blog are aware of Neuro Linguistic Programming, and how it uses some of the methods above to manipulate or the much nicer version, therapeutic uses. If you have not heard of it please look into it. Not to scare anyone but it is being used on all of us a large amount of the time. And politicians have been using it for awhile.
Peace and Love
Mort
Every single one of these points makes the presumption that a concern for the feelings of another human being is an irrelevance.
Defining them as “Thinking Traps” is positively sociopathic. They are perhaps things we should be aware of, but they are based on innate and instinctive responses that are definitively human and humane.
Behavioural attributes it may be important to be aware of; and that arise in many situations, yes, but negative personality traits we should eliminate?
don’t think so.
For many issues, such as the population of Turkey, the beliefs and especially the feelings of others is irrelevant to the matter in that it has no effect on the actual value (which is some definite number even if we can only estimate its value); of course in certain social situations it may not make sense to tell a person they are wrong, but that’s a separate issue. Of course if the issue has to do with the feeling of others, than you would take that into account when you make decisions but I don’t see anything in the article that conflicts with that.
Very interesting!
Even being aware of these thinking traps and knowing how they may impact your behavior won’t necessarily prevent you from continuing to make mistakes in your thought processes. After recognizing the patterns of behavior you have to be vigilant about not falling back into these bad habits or Thinking Traps.
This post will have a lot of people thinking about how they think.
Thank you for a really good post. When can we expect part 2? Critical thinking is pretty rare these days…
For those who asked me about when the next article is coming out, expect it for today or tomorrow at most.
Thanks for your interest — and for your patience!
Awesome! I loved this one and I’m eagerly waiting for the next.
WoW,Amazing article and website Luciano. I casually stumbled across this blog and I am amazed on how fascinating it is. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
When avoiding the status quo trap, one must also be aware of the “grass is always greener trap.” Crab grass looks good from a distance and it is easy enough to think that you are leaving crab grass behind.
You make a good point, as some of these traps have their “opposite traps” as well.
People should be careful about the status quo, but they also must be careful not to change just for the sake of it, right?
Thanks for the insight.
What wisdom! More please!
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!