07 - Chapter 7: A Machine for Jumping to Conclusions

Chapter 7: A Machine for Jumping to Conclusions

• S1 jumps to conclusions —efficient if the concl’s are probably correct, of costs of occasional error acceptable, if jump saves time & effort —but risky in unfamiliar situ’n,  when stakes high, when no time to collect moreinfo — then intuitive errors are likely —preventable by a deliberate intervention of S2

Neglect of Ambiguity & Suppression of Doubt

•  
  
   same middle terms in l. & r. boxes, but we perceive l. as B and r. as 13 because of context —middle box, we think of bank as $, not river bank — S1 generated context, fr. most common experience
• we were unaware of the ambiguity, not aware of any alternatives — S1 does not have consc. doubt
• S2 accepts uncertainy, doubt

A Bias to Believe and Confirm

• S1 is biased to believe, gullible — in order to underst. a state’t, must first grasp meaning, think of it as true
• S2 in charge of doubting, unbelieving
• when S2 is busy, tired, lazy à believe
• confirmation bias — e.g. “Is Sam friendly?” look for confirm. evidence, “Is Sam unfriendly? also look to confirm — S1 favors uncritical acceptance of suggest’ns, exagg’n of probability of extreme, improb. events — e.g. “Probability tsunami will hit California within next 30 years?” mental images of tsunami à overestimate probability

Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (Halo Effect)

• halo effect, common bias = tendency to like/dislike everything about a person, incl. things not observed — S1 generates rep’n of world simpler, more coherent than reality
• e. g. meet X, like her, will attrib. other good qualities to her
• sequence is impt., halo effect puts extra wgt. on first impressions  — e.g. teacher marking 2 essays by a student —

e.g. What do you think of Alan and Ben?

Alan: intelligent — industrious — impulsive — critical— stubborn — envious

Ben: envious — stubborn — critical — impulsive — industrious — intelligent

Alan preferred, first words colour others, ambig’ty of ‘stubborn,’ intellig. = dangerous?

• to counter the halo effect, decorrelate errors, i.e. use multiple independent sources — e.g. before discussion, everyone writes opinion

What You See is All There is (WYSIATI)

• S1 constructs story but only w. ideas currently activated, no allowance for other data — S1 is “successful,” satisfied when story is coherent, not care abt. amt. & quality of data, will jump to concl’ns
• e.g. “Will X be a good leader? She is intelligent and strong…,” S1 immediately says Yes, but X may be corrupt, cruel
• coherence-seeking S1 + lazy S2 à S2 accepts S1’s first impressions — S2 can think carefully, but always influenced by S1 — S1’s input never ceases
• jumping to concl’ns on basis of limited evidence is impt. to underst. of intuitive thinking
• aN.B. WYSIATI = what you see is all there is
• WYSIATI  helps S1 achieve coherence, cogn. ease, helps think fast, make sense of complex input, usually efficient

·         but WYSIATI has many biases —

o   overconfidence

o   framing effects — how info is presented — e.g. 90% fat-free vs. 10% fat

o   base-rate neglect — e.g. X is meek and tidy à more likely be librarian than farmer, forgetting statistical probabilities

Speaking of Jumping to Conclusions

·          “She knows nothing about this person’s management skills. All she is going by is the halo effect fr. a good presentation.”

·         “Let’s decorrelate errors by obtaining separate judg’ts on the issue before any discussion. We will get more information fr. independent assess’ts.”

·         “They made that big decision on the basis of a good report from one consultant. WYSIATI—what you see is all there is. They did not seem to realize how little information they had.”

·         “They didn’t want more information that might spoil their story. WYSIATI.”