To be the best version of ourselves

Facing cognitive biases

Paradoxically, while obliged to take a necessary distance from others, we can also gain some time-space in order to properly assess our group behaviors, revisit and perhaps change the way we approach them. For this purpose, let’s deal with cognitive and social biases along the way. What are they?

Cognitive biases are the systematic gaps that separate our way of perceiving reality and rationality per se, as it is. There are many types of biases that affect different areas related to our life: memory, social relationships, learning, beliefs, money and politics. In addition, new biases are continually being discovered as they are reinforced or made more visible with ‘digital steroids’ as an algorithmic bias, which reinforces human biases, such as gender or racial discrimination, but also for example the IKEA bias, when our perception of the product is influenced positively by the participation in the realization of the product.

Captology or study of digital systems and products as persuasive technology, is one of the practices where our attention is a coveted asset and that is largely based on the use and abuse of cognitive biases to influence our behavior.

Like everything, not all biases are negative, some of them are considered adaptive, that is, they allow us to act more effectively in a given context. Some, as a heuristic understood by the art of inventing, help decision making, in situations where speed or immediacy are more important than absolute accuracy or suitability.

However, a relevant part of cognitive biases comes from our human processing limitations of information, but also from the impact on reasoning of our body perception or individual constitution, or lack of appropriate cognitive mechanisms, bounded rationality style.

There are cognitive biases related to belonging and acting in the group, among them ingroup bias or favoritism, which affects especially our vision regarding ‘other’ groups. These biases are expressed in the preference, greater granularity of vision for our group as opposed to others. Thus, it results in intergroup prejudice and discrimination of the other collective. It is similar to personal preference of oneself, in its egocentric limits when compared to other individuals.

Within group dynamics, groupthink is remarkable, when affiliative limitations are expressed in the concern for consensus that deteriorates the perception of reality. Paradoxically, the influence of this bias is reinforced in the most cohesive groups. It is why diversity and inclusion are so relevant.

Charisma or leadership as well as other power imbalances in a group, also associated with egocentric limitations, may not be beneficial in the medium and long term due to the wall of acquiescence and the desire to keep one’s back protected from those in positions of power.

In meetings and their perception, the group polarization bias has a great impact, as it can silence or escalate extreme or risky positions. Hence, some gatherings are too harmonious while others end up in a chaotic minefield. In both cases, the field of action is diminished. The figure of the ‘devil’s advocate’ when well instrumented, can counteract this trend towards absolutized enthusiasm or bitterness, while avoiding the illusion of the unanimity, which leads us to perceive more agreement than there really is.

The question of knowledge is also provoking in this context, as on the one hand, knowledge is power as we all know, but on the other hand it can imprison us with the confirmatory bias jointly with the ostrich effect, because we find it difficult to say goodbye to the sunken investment already made. Even if it is in knowledge, we become focused on irrational escalation of this investment, despite having opposing evidence that would advise us to withdraw. The availability heuristic, giving more importance to the available information, is another of the knowledge biases. What we do not know, we do not consider.

And now, most importantly, the question is how to counter these biases, and in the case that they cannot be totally eliminated, how to reduce their impact. There seem to be three approaches, at least when it comes to aiding in the right decision making:

• Modify incentives. Many biases remain because it costs less to ignore them than to eliminate them. For example, reducing the costs of healthy eating can help more people to take it into account. However, misapplied incentives can backfire and put more fuel on the fire of already biased behaviors that will be then replicated more enthusiastically.

• Nudges, or small impulses. Applying them we can be able to adapt the most appropriate decision and not the easiest one. For example, include nutritional information on the product, so that we have the option to choose a healthier one.

• Training. It is developed more effectively only a few years ago. It is primarily attributed to a lack of structural depth in attempts to moderate biases. According to recent experiments, interactive computer games aimed at biases counteracting training can be very effective. In terms of forecasts, the reference class ones, taking into account past experiences and their results have been very helpful.

As we can see, cognitive, affiliation and egocentric biases and limitations are highly relevant issues. The first step to become the best version of ourselves, at the group level, is to deepen the awareness of biases and to know that there are studied ways of dealing with them. The first step is done.

For more information on fun and games with cognitive biases see for example.