THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning, Progressive & Degenerative impact, Loss Aversion, Psychological Roots)

Link to Chapter 01:

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 01)

Forms in which Scarcity Mindset may Manifest

A) Believing That Situations Are Permanent: . . . . . . . . . . We think “Well, that’s just the way it is” instead of changing our frame of mind and seeking out our own happiness. Thinking this way depletes our energy, harms our self-esteem, and makes life a burden in general. Nothing is permanent. There are moments in our lives that will take our breath away. An abundant mentality thinks this way and sees life as dynamic and mouldable; something that is ours to shape and make to our liking. Perhaps most importantly, an abundant mentality sees life as an adventure.

B) Using Thoughts And Words Of Scarcity: . . . . . . . . . . What we tell ourselves ultimately becomes an extension of us if left unchecked. When negative thoughts arise, which is quite natural, one way is to become an observer and refuse to engage with them. Everyone is afraid of rejection. However, a recent study from Stanford reports that people tend to overestimate their chances of being rejected. Furthermore, even if we do happen to get rejected usually it is just a matter of widening our pool and continuing along our path.  Rejection doesn’t happen as often as we tend to think—and even if does, it’s simply a matter of moving forward.

C) Comparison/ Being Envious Of Others: . . . . . . . . . . This kills gratitude and stokes the fire of scarcity. When it comes to bettering our circumstances, we can consciously choose to devote our time and energy towards doing so and not wasting it on envious thoughts and feelings. Comparing ourselves to other people is a sure-fire way to stay stuck. The truth is we have no idea what the financial situation of another person or business is. Furthermore, everyone’s definition of success is different. It is important that we define what success means to us so that we can act accordingly.

D) Not Being Generous: . . . . . . . . . . When one lives with a scarcity mindset, they are more apt to “skim off the top” with time, money, relationships, etc. These actions have unintended consequences and make it less likely to generate the positive effects that we seek in our own lives. If we believe in lack, by default, we believe in giving less of ourselves. This does not necessarily mean money, it also means being generous by smiling, saying kind words, investing our time in people, and simply serving a greater good.

E) Overindulgence: . . . . . . . . . . When one thinks in terms of scarcity, they are most likely to overeat, overspend and, in general, become more gluttonous. This is because of another temptation: instant gratification. When we think of money as a scarce resource, there is a tendency to use that resource for pleasure. But pleasure could reinforce the scarcity mindset that one already possesses.

For instance: Let us say that we are having a tough day, feel down on ourselves, and need something positive. We could do something constructive like spending some time with the family (abundance)…or…we could buy that new, cool gadget that we have wanted with our credit card (scarcity). Here the abundant choice has absolutely nothing to do with money. We are focusing our time on what matters the most and not succumbing to some temporary pleasure that, while good for a time, does nothing more than add to the notion that we simply do not have enough.

F) There is too much competition: . . . . . . . . . .We live in an incredibly abundant universe, which means that there are plenty of clients, press opportunities, deals, contracts, blog readers and customers to go around. The best we can do is take care of our side of the street and focus on how our business serves people. Furthermore, we are living in a “share economy” where collaboration has taken centre stage. A classic example is AirBnB and Uber. The truth is this kind of economy, where people are sharing resources, talents, and skills rather than competing with one another, has opened the door for more opportunity within the markets.

G) There is not enough resources/ Economy is Bad: . . . . . . . . . .Lack of resources and funds stops people from doing a lot. Sometimes people use this as an automatic excuse out of fear. There is always someone making money regardless of the state of the economy. Those who curb their scarcity mentality are trained to see opportunity in everything. Many people found themselves in a position of having to create their own businesses because they could not find forms of traditional employment. We also have women starting businesses at a faster rate than ever before. Much of this came as a result of a bad economy.

It is like the old saying goes, Necessity is the mother of invention. It just so happens that often those inventions lead to abundance. In an effort to feel comfortable and secure, many would-be entrepreneurs forego creating businesses despite their desires because they feel like traditional employment is more secure.

Scarcity And Abundance Loops at Play (Using an example of Art)

Scarcity Mindset At Play (With Instances around us To Support Recognition)

Many organizations use psychological alteration to influence favorable decisions to maximize profit. Understanding how scarcity works allow us to be aware of such tactics and be prepared. Some examples of these are:

A) Time-limited scarcity: . . . . . . . . . In time-limited offers, the user needs to decide before a set deadline- this adds a sense of urgency to the decision-making process.

Instances: – – – – The most common real-life scenario is waiting until the last minute to complete projects/study for exams. In such cases, focus and attention levels increase and so does prioritizing. Flipkart indicates the count-down timer showing when the discounted price ends, which influences the user to grab the product deal before it expires.

B) Quantity-limited scarcity: . . . . . . . . .This is considered more powerful than time-limited scarcity, as availability depends on popularity or supply and is therefore unpredictable. This can be of the following types:

i) Limited Supply: – – – Items with limited supply are valued and desired more. Oil prices soar in countries like India due to limited supply, whereas the opposite is true in countries like Kuwait, Saudi due to availability. Amazon showcases “only 2 left in stock”, representing a product’s diminishing availability thus influencing the user to make the decision quickly.

ii) Popularity: – – –The popularity of an item represents the social proof that it must be good and valuable and triggers us to grab the deal. Myntra is used to showcase “18 people added this item to their cart” in their product page which informs the user that the product they are viewing is popular and might get over soon.

iii) Limited Supply and Popularity: – – – – This is more effective than the above two. Not only do we desire an item when it is scarce, but we also want it, even more, when we have to compete for it. Stamps and antique pieces are quite valuable because they are unique and cannot be easily supplied. People then outbid each other to possess the item which makes the value of the item increase significantly.Booking.com showcasing “only 6 rooms left” along with “6 people are looking at this moment”.

C) Access-limited scarcity:: . . . . . . . . .When access to certain information is limited, it is perceived as having higher value because of exclusivity, especially when it’s bound to social status.

Instances: – – – – Priority pass membership provides access to special airport lounges which include free complimentary food, alcohol, Wi-fi, and discounts on shopping. One Plus implemented an invite-only sales strategy which helped them create a great buzz in the market. People ‘lucky enough’ to be invited felt more privileged. This resulted in over 25 million visits to the site and close to a million sales in less than a year after launch.

D) Ban or Censorship:: . . . . . . . . .When anything interferes with our prior access to some item, we desire it more and want to have even more than before.

Instances: – – – – The ‘Romeo and Juliet’ effect highlights that the greater the parental disapproval of a relationship is, the more that relationship intensifies.

E) One-of-a-kind Special Events:: . . . . . . . . .‘Now or never’ scenarios. We seek to experience ‘once in a lifetime opportunities’, because of their unavailability later on.

Instances: – – – – Reliance Jio provided great introductory offers in India at the time of its launch which attracted a lot of customers. In Kanchipuram, the idol of Aththi Varadar is available for darshan once every 40 years for only a few days. Lakhs of devotees visit the temple to experience this once in a lifetime opportunity.

Ways to deal with Scarcity Mindset

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 01)

Most of us can remember playing musical chairs as a child. As the music played and we marched around the circumference of the circle of chairs, we anxiously awaited the music to stop so we could fight for that last seated spot. There was something about that one-on-one physical competition and face-to-face conflict fighting for something tangible that added spice to the game. This is often one of the youngest experiences that we have of a scarcity mentality that can be translated to adult life

Simply put, Scarcity is the condition of having insufficient resources to cope with demand. When we are faced with limited resources, we strive to make effective use of them in the process of making important decisions. Economics is the study of how we use our limited resources (time, money, etc) to achieve our goals. This definition refers to physical scarcity.

Once we enter that professional world, that “every person for (him/her)self” way of thinking often re-emerges as many people fight for a single job opening or a chance at being promoted. People in the corporate world are conditioned to think in this limiting way, and we may have been influenced as well.

When we think of the word ‘scarcity’, many of us will immediately think about money. After all, it is expensive to live, and many of us concern ourselves by stretching each Rupee. However, scarcity is a mindset. It comes in many other forms – time, relationships, health, intelligence, judgment, willpower, etc. Scarcity orients the mind automatically and powerfully toward unfulfilled needs. For example, food grabs the focus of the hungry. For the lonely person, scarcity may come in poverty of social isolation and a lack of companionship.

Having thoughts and feelings of scarcity automatically orient the mind towards unfulfilled wants and needs. Furthermore, scarcity often leads to lapses in self-control while draining the cognitive resources needed to maximize opportunity and display judgment. Willpower also is depleted, which makes one prone to feelings of giving up. People in this state attend to the urgent while neglecting important choices that will have a drastic effect on the future. A scarcity mindset is exactly that: a mindset.

Progressive Impact

On the positive side, scarcity prioritizes our choices, and it can make us more effective. Scarcity creates a powerful goal dealing with pressing needs and ignoring other goals. For example, the time pressure of a deadline focuses our attention on using what we have most effectively. Distractions are less tempting. When we have little time left, we try to get more out of every moment.

Scarcity contributes to an interesting and a meaningful life. When there is always time for everything, there is no urgency for anything. A life without limits would lose the beauty of its moments, and it would become boring. For example, resolution of midlife crises consists in accepting mortality. Midlife often heightens the feeling that there is not enough time left in life to waste. We overcome the illusion that we can be anything, do anything, and experience everything. We restructure our lives around the needs that are essential. This means that we accept that there will be many things we will not do in our lives.

Scarcity forces trade-off thinking. We recognize that having one thing means not having something else. Economists call this the opportunity cost—the alternative use of the money. Doing one thing means neglecting other things. However, slack frees us from making trade-offs. For example, as our budget grows, the purchase of the iPad takes up a smaller and smaller portion of our disposable income. Thus, a bigger budget makes decisions less consequential and lessens feelings of scarcity.

Degenerative Impact

The context of scarcity makes us myopic (exhibiting bias toward here and now). The mind is focused on present scarcity. We overvalue immediate benefits at the expense of future ones (e.g., procrastinate important things, such as medical check-ups, or exercising). We only attend to urgent things and fail to make small investments even when future benefits can be substantial.  To attend to the future requires cognitive resources, which scarcity depletes. We need cognitive resources to plan and to resist present temptations. 

A key concern in the management of scarcity is to economize cognitive resources. Cognitive resource is about allocating our limited information-processing abilities. Concentrating our effort on one or—at most—a few goals at a time increases the odds of success. For example, research suggests that the best way to get more done in less time requires one to avoid exhaustion and skillfully manage energy by getting sufficient sleep (8 or more hours), more breaks, or daytime naps.

Loss Aversion:

When we see something which we want becoming less available, we get physical anxiety. This is worse when there is direct competition. The focus narrows and emotions rise making it difficult to feel calm. Opportunities appear more valuable to us when availability is limited. The idea of potential loss plays a significant role in human decision making. People seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value. We prefer avoiding a loss than pursuing gains. The FOMO(Fear of Missing Out) is directly associated with this.

Psychological Roots:

Psychological Reactance Theory:- ‘Reactance is unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. So, when something (a product or service) which is generally easily available becomes scarce, this perceived ‘threat’ to our freedom to have it makes us crave it significantly more than before.

Anticipated Regret:– Another unpleasant emotional state that may influence our buying choices is anticipated regret. In other words, the feeling we experience when we imagine what it would be like if the decision we are currently making is the wrong one.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Forms of Scarcity Mindset, Instances around us, ways to identify and mitigate) Link to Chapter -02:

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 02)

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

NEUROSCIENCES BASED BRAIN/ MIND REGULATION: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED

We are hard-wired to fight or flee under threat, so it is normal to want to act out in defence when we experience or observe the injustices in today’s world. But when we respond with our primitive, survive mind, it raises the stakes for impulsive and unreasonable reactions and in some cases violence, even death. Our survive brain can colonize our hearts and dwarf our humanity if we continue to allow it—as evidenced by large-scale injustices such as racially motivated murders, hate crimes, violent protests, police brutality, deadly reactions to the COVID-19 lock-down and global terrorism.

Survive Mind Versus Thrive Mind

We have a choice to permit our lives to be driven by our survive mind’s violent reactions or drawn from our thrive mind’s calm, compassionate, and clear-minded actions. Our lives are shaped from the inside out. If we lose our inner connection, in small ways and big, our personal lives and the world unravel. It starts with each of us exercising our own levelheadedness, self-control, and inner calm at an individual level.

All of us have a running monologue in our heads with the intention to control ourselves whether it is to stop from blowing up at the injustice we see in news feeds, eating another slice of pizza, or blurting out at a colleague who talks over us in a virtual meeting. But how many times have we said or done something we wish we could take back? We can blame our impulsive, self-immersed, non-thinking survive brain. Once we become clearheaded and regret what we said or did, we have shifted into our reflective, self-distanced, thinking thrive brain. But what if we could act more from our thrive brain (and react less from your survive brain) in the first place?

Self-Talk: Thrive talk instead of survive talk creates greater resilience.

Self-talk and how we consciously use it is a relatively effortless form of self-control in many different areas of our lives: diet, athletic performance, scholastic achievement, emotion regulation and impulsive behaviors. The way we talk to ourselves can help us survive or thrive.There was a time when people who talked to themselves were considered “crazy.” Now, experts consider self-talk to be one of the most effective therapeutic tools available. The science of self-talk has shown time and again that how we use self-talk makes a big difference.

We have an inner voice that provides a running monologue on our lives throughout the day and into the night. This inner voice, combining conscious thoughts with unconscious beliefs and biases, is an effective way for the brain to interpret and process daily experiences.

According to research, we have greater self-control when we use self-distanced self-talk from our thrive brain that entails using our name and non-first-person pronouns (instead of self-immersed first-person pronouns of “I” from our survive brain). Self-distancing gives us psychological distance from the survive brain’s egocentric bias which in turn enhances self-control, lowers anxiety, bolsters confidence, reduces impulsivity, improves emotion regulation, and cultivates wisdom over time. The reason for this difference is that third person self-talk leads us to think about ourselves similar to how we think about others and gives us agency to regulate our frustration, anger, or fear simply by the way we use internal dialogue.

Our “inner voice” can give us the self-control to stop us from making impulsive decisions. Research has confirmed that we act more impulsively when we cannot use our inner voice or talk to ourselves as we are performing tasks. Self-talk incorporating non-first-person pronouns (like the collective “we”) can enhance athletic performance and the ability to regulate thoughts, feelings and behaviours and help us to avoid rumination and improve performance with greater perspective, calm and confidence.

Self-Distancing

As human beings, our sense of self, or ‘ego’ governs a large part of our behavior, like our interactions with other people, our sense of self-worth and the image we have of ourselves in our minds. And often this image is very fragile, susceptible to all kinds of doubt and insecurity. Recent studies show that creating an alter ego or thinking of one’s self in the third person can go a long way in boosting morale and instilling confidence.

Research shows silently referring to ourselves by name instead as “I,” gives us psychological distance from the primitive parts of our brain. It allows us to talk to ourselves the way we might speak to someone else. The survive mind’s story is not the only story. And the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. First-name self-talk or referring to ourselves as “you,” shifts focus away from our primitive brain’s inherent egocentricism. Studies show this practice lowers anxiety, gives us self-control, cultivates wisdom over time and puts the brakes on the negative voices that restrict possibilities.

First-name self-talk is more likely to empower us and increase the likelihood that, compared to someone using first-person pronoun self-talk, we see a challenge (thrive mind) instead of a threat (survive mind).

The Language of Separation

The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. Thus, our survive mind’s story is not the only story and the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. Experts have found that the best approach to deal with the survive mind is to respond as if it is another person. We must remember that the voice is not us. Some Examples of the language of separation and practicing self-distancing are:

Broaden-and-Build: The Big Picture

It sometimes helps to think of ourselves as the narrator, instead of the actor, of our thoughts and feelings when we are in a disturbing scene. Scientists report that narrative expressive writing creates a self-distanced versus self-immersed perspective and helps us overcome egocentric impulses, reduce stressful cardiovascular effects, and apply wise reasoning. With this form of self-distancing, we can process and make meaning from a bird’s-eye view instead of a personal perspective, fostering forward movement as opposed to rumination and re-experiencing the same negative emotions over and over again.

Like the zoom lens of a camera, Mother Nature has hardwired our survival brain for tunnel vision to target a threat. Our heart races, eyes dilate, and breathing escalates to enable us to fight or flee. As our brain zeroes in, our self-talk makes life-or-death judgments that constrict our ability to see possibilities. Our focus is narrow like the zoom lens of a camera, clouding out the big picture. And over time we build blind spots of negativity without realizing it. Self-talk through our wide-angle lens allows us to step back from a challenge, look at the big picture, and brainstorm on a wider range of possibilities, solutions, opportunities and choices.

Self-Affirmations

In 2014, Clayton Critcher and David Dunning at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted a series of studies showing that positive affirmations function as “cognitive expanders,” bringing a wider perspective to diffuse the brain’s tunnel vision of self-threats. Affirmations help us transcend the zoom-lens mode by engaging the wide-angle lens of the mind. Self-affirmations help cultivate a long-distance relationship with their judgment voice and see ourselves more fully in a broader self-view, bolstering our self-worth.

Relationships with Our ‘Parts’

When we notice that we are in an unpleasant emotional state—such as worry, anger, or frustration—holding these parts of us at arm’s length and observing them impartially as a separate aspect of us, activates our thrive talk (clarity, compassion, calm). Thinking of them much as we might observe a blemish on our hand allows us to be curious about where they came from. Instead of pushing away, ignoring, or steamrolling over the unpleasant parts, the key is to acknowledge them with something like, “Hello frustration, I see you are active today.”

This simple acknowledgment relaxes the parts so we can face the real hardship—whatever triggered them in the first place. This psychological distance flips the switches in our survive brain and thrive brain at which point we are calm, clear-minded, compassionate, perform competently, and have more confidence and courage.

Self-Compassion

There is a direct link between self-compassion and happiness, well-being, and success. The more self-compassion we have, the greater our emotional arsenal. Studies show that meditation cultivates compassion and kindness, affecting brain regions that make us more empathetic to other people. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers discovered that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be developed in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport.

The expression of empathy has far-reaching effects in our personal and professional lives. Employers who express empathy are more likely to retain employees, amp up productivity, reduce turnover, and create a sense of belonging in the company. If we cultivate the habit of speaking with loving-kindness, we change the way our brain fires in the moment.

Research shows that when abrasive, survive self-talk attacks us, it reduces our chances of rebounding and ultimately success. Instead of coming down hard on ourselves, loving-kindness helps us bounce back quicker. Forgiving ourselves for previous slip-ups such as procrastination, for example, offsets further procrastination. When we talk ourselves off the ledge using self-distancing, compassion, and positive self-talk, we perform better at tasks and recover more quickly from defeat or setbacks—regardless of how dire the circumstances.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Cognitive Biases and Debiasing, The Debiasing Process)

Link to Chapter 01:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Various Debiasing Techniques

There are a few general debiasing strategies (sometimes referred to as cognitive-forcing strategies), which can help deal with many of the cognitive biases. Many of these strategies are interrelated since the underlying principles behind them are similar.

A) Develop awareness of cognitive biases: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>>  In some cases, simply being aware of a certain bias can help us reduce its impact. For example, consider the illusion of transparency, a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate how well others can discern their emotional state, so that they tend to think that other people can tell if they are feeling nervous or anxious even in situations where that is not the case.

This happens because our own emotional experience can be so strong, we are sure our emotions ‘leak out.’ However, observers are not as good at picking up on a speaker’s emotional state as we tend to expect. What is inside of us typically manifests itself too subtly to be detected by others. We must relax and understand that if we become nervous, we will probably be the only ones to know.

B) Improve the way we present information: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This can affect the way people process it, and the same information, presented in two different ways to the same person, can lead to two very different outcomes. Accordingly, by modifying the way we present information to people, we can reduce the influence of certain cognitive biases.

The exact way in which this strategy can be implemented depends on the circumstances, and on the cognitive biases that we are trying to avoid. Presenting information in an optimal way, that encourages people to think through it rather than react intuitively, can go a long way toward mitigating various cognitive biases.

C) Favour simple explanations over complex ones: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This is rooted in the overkill backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter a complex explanation to reject it in favour of a simpler alternative, and to sometimes also reinforce their belief in the simpler alternative. When it comes to debiasing, simple explanations are often preferable to complex ones. This concept can be applied in many areas of the debiasing process, from how we think through past events to how we present information.

D) Slow down the reasoning process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> The benefit of doing this is that it allows to reflect on our reasoning process, and to think through alternative viewpoints, while also helping to avoid relying on biased intuitions. One way of encouraging this is to establish specific routines and protocols, which ensure that we slow down when necessary. Slowing down can help us reduce various cognitive biases, by enabling us to run an unrushed reasoning process, which is less influenced by our biased intuitions and emotional considerations.

E) Use nudges: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Nudges are simple modifications that are made to an environment to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way, without forbidding any options or changing their incentives on a significant scale. This means that to count as a nudge, an intervention must be easy to avoid. For example, placing water bottles instead of soda cans near the register of a cafeteria counts as a nudge, while banning soda outright does not. Using nudges usually entails making changes to the people’s decision-making process, in a way that involves the implementation of other debiasing strategies.

One instance where nudges can be helpful is in the mitigation of the backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to strengthen their support of their pre-existing beliefs when they encounter evidence which shows that those beliefs are wrong. This bias evident, for example, in the fact that when people are introduced to negative information about a political candidate that they favour, they often end up increasing their support for that candidate. One of the main ways to mitigate the backfire effect is to preface information that people might feel defensive about with questions that encourage them to process it.

F) Change incentives: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> In theory, there are two parameters related to incentives that we can modify in order to reduce the likelihood of biased decision-making: –

1. . . . . . increase the benefits (positive feedback or rewards) of making a non-biased decision. 
2. . . . . .  increase the penalties (negative feedback or punishments) for making a biased decision. 

However, in practice, changing people’s incentives does not always work, and might even backfire in some cases, such as when people feel actively antagonized by the changed incentive structure. Since the effects of changing incentives are difficult to predict, it’s important to be wary if we are thinking about changing them as part of debiasing process.

G) Increase involvement in the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Increasing how involved people feel about a certain decision and how much they care about it can reduce certain cognitive biases. By ensuring that people care more about making an unbiased decision, we can make them more open to using various metacognitive strategies, which can help debias successfully.

There are many ways in which we can increase people’s involvement in the decision-making process. One of the main ones is to emphasize their role as active participants in their own reasoning process, and to encourage them to rely on conscious reasoning, as opposed to subconscious intuitions. In doing this, we can ask people to clearly outline and verbalize their reasoning process, which can help them identify gaps in their logic, and think in a more rational way.

H) Increase personal accountability: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> When people know that they will be held accountable for their decisions and that their decisions will be scrutinized by others, they tend to put more effort into the decision-making process, which can sometimes help people mitigate certain cognitive biases.

I) Elicit feedback from others: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Receiving feedback from other people can help reduce certain cognitive biases. This is especially noticeable in the case of biases that influence people’s perception of themselves, such as the worse-than-average effect, which causes people to incorrectly believe that they are worse than other people at performing certain difficult tasks. However, when considering other people’s feedback, it is important to remember that they are also prone to various cognitive biases. Therefore, it is important to always be wary when deciding who to ask for feedback, and when deciding how to implement that feedback once we receive it.

J) Standardize the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Deciding to make our decisions in a standardized way can help ensure that we use all the necessary debiasing techniques that we need to go through an optimal decision-making process.

For example, the use of a simple mnemonic checklist was shown to help doctors apply important metacognitive strategies and make better decisions in a clinical context.

K) Create favourable conditions for decision making: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> We can facilitate the debiasing process by improving the conditions in which you make decisions. While it is often difficult to make those conditions absolutely perfect, even minor changes can be monumental in helping improve our ability to make rational decisions.

1. Improve internal conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as sleep deprivation, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as multitasking.
2. Improve external conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as high noise levels, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as social pressure.

Bias-Specific Debiasing Techniques

There are also some debiasing techniques that are applicable in more specific cases. They can only help deal with a certain type of bias. The advantage of such techniques is that even though they are applicable in fewer cases, they can often be more effective than generalized debiasing strategies. Some of them are:

A) Reduce your reliance on subjective memory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>  Research shows that our memory of past events is subjective, malleable, and prone to various distortions.

For example, there is the rosy retrospection bias, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to recall past events in a way that is more positive than how they experienced those events in reality. This bias can, for example, cause us to remember a past vacation as having been more enjoyable than it really was.

One way to mitigate these issues is to reduce reliance on such memory, by using objective records to examine past events. The main advantage of this technique is that we are better at remembering where information is stored and how to retrieve it, than we are at remembering the information itself.

B) Consider alternative outcomes to past events: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . >> This can also help deal with some of the biases that distort our view of these events. For example, the choice-supportive bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to retroactively ascribe more positive features and fewer negative features to an option that they chose. This bias can, for example, cause to justify a purchase that we made by overemphasizing the positive aspects of the item that we decided to buy. By considering alternative items that we could have purchased, we could potentially mitigate the choice-supportive bias, which could help view the purchase in a clearer, more unbiased way.

When doing this, our focus should be on trying to find a small number of highly plausible alternative outcomes. This is because, as we saw earlier, struggling to find a large number of alternative outcomes to an event can be counterproductive, and could actually hinder our ability to debias.

C) Create psychological distance: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Consider the spotlight effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate the degree to which others are likely to notice their actions or appearance, meaning that it causes people to assume that others are likely to notice it if they wear something embarrassing or say something stupid, even if that is not the case. We experience the spotlight effect because when we think about how other people see us, we tend to anchor their viewpoint to our own. Since we are so used to seeing things from our own perspective, we struggle to accurately judge how other people see us. One way to reduce the impact of this is to create psychological self-distance when we think about how other people view us. This entails trying to look at ourselves from a perspective that is different from our own, such as from the perspective of the person that we are talking to.

Creating psychological distance can also help fight against other types of biases. For example, the authority bias, which is the tendency to obey the orders of an authority figure, even when you believe that there is something wrong with those orders. One way in which people managed to cope with the authority bias was by increasing the physical and psychological distance between themselves and the authority figure. For instance, when the authority figure gave instructions through a phone, and was not in the same room as the person receiving the instructions, people were more likely to think rationally.

In Conclusion

It is important to keep in mind that different debiasing strategies will vary in their effectiveness and will have a different impact in different scenarios.

**Source Credits:

The book- The Art of Thinking Clearly -by Rolf Dobelli

The book- Predictably Irrational -by Dan Ariely
The book- The Illusion of Transparency and the Alleviation of Speech Anxiety -by Savitsky & Gilovich

The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Cognitive bias mitigation (or Debiasing) is the practice through which we reduce the influence that cognitive biases have on people, to enable them to think in a more rational and optimal manner. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality, which occur due to the way our cognitive system works. Cognitive biases affect us in various areas of our life, from the way we interact with others to the way that we form our political opinions. Since these biases cause us to think and act in an irrational manner, their influence can be detrimental, which is why people often want to be able to mitigate them.

Examples of Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases can influence our thinking in diverse ways, including the undermentioned:

A) Cognitive biases can affect how we form impressions of other people: -. . .  For example, the halo effect is a cognitive bias that causes our impression of someone in one area to influence our opinion of that person in other areas. This bias can cause us to assume that a person is highly knowledgeable and has an interesting personality, simply because they are physically attractive.

B) Cognitive biases can affect how we acquire information: -. . . . For example, the ostrich effect is a cognitive bias that causes us to avoid situations where we might encounter information that we perceive as negative. This bias can cause us to avoid going to the doctor, if we believe that the doctor will have bad news for us, that we do not want to deal with.

C) Cognitive biases can affect how we prepare for the future: -. . . . For example, the pessimism bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to overestimate the likelihood that bad things will happen. This bias can cause us to assume that we are going to do badly on an exam, even if we are prepared for it and it is likely that we will do well.

Does Cognitive Debiasing Work?

Research shows that cognitive debiasing does work in some cases, and that proper training and interventions can help reduce certain biases. However, there are situations where it does not entirely work. For example, one study examined people’s optimism bias, when it comes to believing that one’s own risk of suffering from health issues is lower than that of others.

Despite attempts to correct this bias, the researchers found that people’s optimism bias persisted in the face of various debiasing interventions. This demonstrates that debiasing is not always straightforward and finding the appropriate debiasing techniques to use in a certain situation can sometimes be a difficult process.

Nevertheless, it is always ideal to function under the belief that debiasing might be effective. This means we should try and reduce cognitive biases where possible, as long as doing so is not associated with an excessive cost/ repercussion. It is important to be realistic when deciding on debiasing goals, and when we are assessing whether or not our debiasing attempts will be successful.

How To Debias: – Overview Of The Debiasing Process

There are several stages in the debiasing process.

First, a cognitive bias is triggered. Then, we must become aware of this bias, and realize that it has been triggered. Once we realize that the bias has been triggered, we must conclude if there is a need to debias and make a conscious choice and commit to debiasing. After (or if) we do choose to debias, we need to start by assessing the bias, which involves determining in what way the bias impacts us and (or) the people around us. Once we understand what we are dealing with, we need to select the appropriate debiasing technique and apply it. Once successfully debiased, we can now move on to make an optimal decision.

We can also add an additional step, by reassessing the situation after we apply the debiasing strategy, to determine whether the debiasing attempt worked. Else, we can repeat the previous step, and either implement a different debiasing strategy or attempt to implement the previous one again, until successful at debiasing.

Two things to be cautious of are:

a) It is often difficult to accurately assess whether or not we have debiased successfully.

b) Repeated debiasing attempts can often be difficult to implement in practice, especially if we are trying to debias someone else.

Exercising Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognition, which refers to the ability to be consciously aware of your thought process, stands at the core of cognitive-bias inoculation and mitigation. Metacognitive awareness aids in: –

a) being aware of the various cognitive pitfalls and errors that we might encounter when processing information and making decisions,

b) ensuring that we successfully identify cases where cognitive biases affect people,

c)  successfully applying the relevant debiasing strategies, and,

d) ensuring that we accurately assess how successful the debiasing attempts are.

Differences between different debiasing techniques

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Various Debiasing Techniques for everyday situations)- Link to Chapter – 02:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

*Source Credits:

1. The book- Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
2. The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

FOLLOW THROUGH BEHAVIOURS: THE AKRASIA EFFECT

A brief story:

In the summer of 1830, Victor Hugo was facing an impossible deadline. Twelve months earlier, the French author had promised his publisher a new book. But instead of writing, he spent that year pursuing other projects, entertaining guests, and delaying his work. Frustrated, Hugo’s publisher responded by setting a deadline less than six months away. The book had to be finished by February 1831.

Hugo concocted a strange plan to beat his procrastination. He collected all his clothes and asked an assistant to lock them away in a large chest. He was left with nothing to wear except a large shawl. Lacking any suitable clothing to go outdoors, he remained in his study and wrote furiously during the fall and winter of 1830. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was published two weeks early on January 14, 1831.

Procrastination is usually a “yes” or “no” question”

For more conventional instances, consider addictive behaviour patterns or compulsive traits like over-shopping and blowing the budget, or manic media use; maybe even something like starting an argument one “knows” one will regret and that will lead to trouble or grief.

Having an explanation seems good because it suggests some kind of intervention based on that knowledge, but in some cases, it just doesn’t work. Yet we still feel the hypnotic pull toward explanations, even if the terms being explained are just accepted in a very uncritical way.

When we make a decision to do something or not, our brain usually has a “gut instinct” answer of yes or no, before the words even come out of the mouth. We consider what benefit it has first, and then what benefit it may have for another person. Then we consider other criteria like time, strength, and effort it will take before we actually decide what it is we are going to do. This all happens in a split second before we commit, and the answer comes out of the mouth.

Often, procrastination occurs when you have decided to complete a task, but you keep postponing until later without consciously choosing to do it then. Not all procrastination is bad procrastination. There are two types of procrastinators- active and passive.

Though you may be convinced by this that you are an active procrastinator the truth is most of us are actually passive procrastinators. We delay our work just because we can and with no justifiable reason.

Maybe it is better to try to “own” the behavior rather than blaming externals. So, it is not necessarily a useless idea. The concept of Akrasia is a sort of promise the executive self makes to itself about self-control and autonomy. And it is also the basis for promises one makes to other people about accountability, or rather, explanations for the occasional breakdown and exception.

The Ancient Problem of Akrasia
Human beings have been procrastinating for centuries. Even prolific artists like Victor Hugo are not immune to the distractions of daily life. The problem is so timeless, in fact, that ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle developed a word to describe this type of behavior: Akrasia.

Human behaviour is complex, and we interpret through a network of concepts which themselves are cultural and philosophical constructs. If the typical definition of “akrasia” is “weakness of will”, then what is will? If will is some vaguely defined power of “mind”, then what is mind? If mind is an active presence within “self”, then what is self? … and so on.

Akrasia is the state of acting against your better judgment. It is when you do one thing even though you know you should do something else. Loosely translated, you could say that akrasia is procrastination or a lack of self-control. Akrasia is what prevents you from following through on what you set out to do. Why would Victor Hugo commit to writing a book and then put it off for over a year? Why do we make plans, set deadlines, and commit to goals, but then fail to follow through on them?

Also, akrasia is loss of self-control, in the sense of action contrary to reason. In akrasia, there is an ingrained habit in an individual, of the non-rational elements of the soul subverting the rational capacities. Action is usually guided in a range of ways by reason. So akrasia is interesting because it involves a departure from a norm.

Why We Make Plans, But Don’t Take Action
One explanation for why akrasia rules our lives and procrastination pulls us in has to do with a behavioural economics term called “time inconsistency.” Time inconsistency refers to the tendency of the human brain to value immediate rewards more highly than future rewards.

When we make plans for ourself — like setting a goal to lose weight or write a book or learn a language — we are actually making plans for our future self. We are envisioning what we want our life to be like in the future and when we think about the future it is easy for our brain to see the value in taking actions with long-term benefits.

When the time comes to make a decision, however, we are no longer making a choice for our future self. Now we are in the moment and our brain is thinking about the present self. And researchers have discovered that the present self really likes instant gratification, not long-term payoff. This is one reason why we might go to bed feeling motivated to make a change in our life, but when we wake up, we find ourselves falling into old patterns. Our brain values long-term benefits when they are in the future, but it values immediate gratification when it comes to the present moment. This is one reason why the ability to delay gratification is such a great predictor of success in life. Understanding how to resist the pull of instant gratification—at least occasionally, if not consistently—can help you bridge the gap between where you are and where you want to be.

A Framework to Beat Procrastination

Strategy 1: Design your future actions.

When Victor Hugo locked his clothes away so he could focus on writing, he was creating what psychologists refer to as a “commitment device.” A commitment device is a choice we make in the present that controls our actions in the future. It is a way to lock in future behavior, bind us to good habits, and restrict us from bad ones.

There are many ways to create a commitment device. We can:

The circumstances differ, but the message is the same: commitment devices can help us design our future actions. The goal is to find ways to automate our behaviour beforehand rather than relying on willpower in the moment.

Strategy 2: Reduce the friction of starting.

The guilt and frustration of procrastinating is usually worse than the pain of doing the work. In the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky, “On a moment-to-moment basis, being in the middle of doing the work is usually less painful than being in the middle of procrastinating.”

So why do we still procrastinate? Because it is not being in the work that is hard, it’s starting the work. The friction that prevents us from acting is usually centred around starting the behaviour. Once we begin, it is often less painful to do the work. This is why it is often more important to build the habit of getting started when we are beginning a new behaviour than it is to worry about whether or not we are successful at the new habit.

We have to constantly reduce the size of our habits. We need to put all of the effort and energy into building a ritual and make it as easy as possible to get started. We need not worry about the results until the art of showing up is mastered.

Strategy 3: Utilize implementation intentions.

An implementation intention is when we state our intention to implement a particular behavior at a specific time in the future. For example, “I will exercise for at least 30 minutes on [DATE] in [PLACE] at [TIME].” There are hundreds of successful studies showing how implementation intentions positively impact everything from exercise habits to flu shots. It seems simple to say that scheduling things ahead of time can make a difference, but implementation intentions can make us 2x to 3x more likely to perform an action in the future.

Fighting Akrasia
Our brains prefer instant rewards to long-term payoffs. It is simply a consequence of how our minds work. Given this tendency, we often must resort to crazy strategies to get things done—like Victor Hugo locking up all of his clothes so he could write a book. But it is sometimes worth to spend time building these commitment devices if our goals are important to us.

Aristotle coined the term Enkrateia as the antonym of Akrasia. While akrasia refers to our tendency to fall victim to procrastination, Enkrateia means to be “in power over oneself.” Designing your future actions, reducing the friction of starting good behaviors, and using implementation intentions are simple steps that you can take to make it easier to live a life of Enkrateia rather than one of Akrasia.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

NEGOTIATION MINDSET: BEHAVIOURS & EMOTIONS INVOLVED

Negotiation is an inherent part of influencing someone. In a work environment, it can be external negotiations, with a supplier or a client; or internal, with a boss, colleague or subordinate. But we must also negotiate with ourselves, be aware of instinctive reactions (psychological and physical), in order to regulate them and respond consciously and appropriately to the circumstances so that we get the best result.

All negotiations comprise two dimensions: The “substance,” meaning the subject matter or objective of the negotiation, and the “relationship,” i.e., the interaction or connection with the other person. We negotiate because we are looking to gain something or because the relationship with the other party is important. These two dimensions are always in play and under tension because the things we do to improve the substance—such as not making concessions—damage the relationship to a certain degree. Conversely, when we try to grow the relationship, decisions like being flexible can lessen the substance, which in turn becomes a source of frustration.

Our Emotional Reactions

In order to change, we must be aware of the behaviour that needs changing. Most of us fall into assumptions or mindsets about negotiation, generally as a result of emotional reactions that trigger certain behaviours and can have an influence on either maximizing our benefit or achieving the exact opposite. Indeed, oftentimes the problem is not the behaviour itself, but rather the mindset that generates that behaviour. Changing mindsets will automatically bring about different results. Some of the most common assumptions regarding negotiation are: 

Competing?: . . .  Not always. It is incorrectly assumed that negotiating implies competing. It is necessary sometimes, but not always. The key is being capable of adapting our behavior to the circumstances.

“Wait and see” vs. “be proactive.” . . . . Perhaps, due to ignorance, most people go to negotiations hoping to see how the other party behaves and then react accordingly. We tend to be reactive, which is a mistake because we have a huge capacity to influence others if we are proactive, if we have a definite plan and a clear approach to negotiating. When it comes to reactivity, the advice is: “Do not react. Wait, buy time, then respond.”

The value available is definite: . . . .  That’s why we compete: We think we must divide what’s there and take the biggest piece, when it’s easy to increase the value available in a negotiation.

Not identifying intention with impact: . . . . There is a clear lack of communication in negotiations. The counterpart’s intentions are always misinterpreted because that makes evolutionary sense. If an ambiguous signal is sent, the recipient will always interpret it in the worst possible way. In a negotiation, we need to send clear messages.

Short term versus long term: . . . . . We tend to think in the short term, however collaborative thinking in the long term is more beneficial.

As for this last assumption, it is also important to mention reputation, which is difficult to build but can be destroyed in a heartbeat. Having a short-term mentality keeps us from thinking about the implications of our actions in the long run. Nevertheless, we should not simply place our trust if we do not have a basis for doing so. The key is to be trustworthy, but not overly trusting.

The first key to negotiation, thus, is the mindset, being aware that we carry baggage that makes us react in a certain way that is not always the most appropriate. If we change our mindset, we change the behaviour and can get different results. Most of us fall into assumptions or mindsets about negotiation, generally as a result of emotional reactions that trigger certain behaviours and can have an influence on either maximizing our benefit or achieving the exact opposite.

Negotiation Styles

There are five styles of negotiation, depending on how much the substance and relationship matter:

A) – Competing: . . . . There are people for whom substance is everything and the relationship doesn’t matter. Their style of negotiation tends to be aggressive: they compete. The benefit is that it always gets great results; the downside is that in the long run nobody wants to play with them.

B) – Avoiding: . . . . . When neither substance nor relationship matters, we tend to avoid it.

C) – Accommodating: . . . . .. When the substance is minor and inconsequential, and the relationship is very important, we tend to adapt to their requests. The long-term problem is that the substance will be insignificant.

D) – Compromise: . . . . .. When both dimensions matter (neither for you nor for me), the decision is to compromise (50-50%) because it is quick and seems equitable.

E) – Collaborating: . . . . .. This style maximizes both the relationship and the substance. It is quite complex and definitely not innate. It requires training and counteracting our impulses. We can only collaborate when we have enough time and knowledge and we care about both dimensions.

Which style is best? That depends on the circumstances. We all have a predetermined style that we feel most comfortable with and we unconsciously revert to that in stressful situations, such as negotiations. We must be clear on two objectives: first, being aware of our own automatic reaction; second, using a style that fits the circumstances. From the outset, we must take into account that the collaborating style is not innate, since our instinctive reactions often lead us to compete, avoid, accommodate or compromise.

To be able to move from positions to interests we must ask open questions, showing curiosity, without prejudice.

Elements for a Collaborative Negotiation Framework

Generally, simple criteria are used to define what a successful negotiation looks like. However, the criteria are lacking and leave us exposed to manipulation. Thus, it requires a more complex model that can:

Some key elements that are key in a negotiation process are:

A) – Interests: . . . . . The needs and motivations that lead to negotiation. It is important to differentiate negotiations from positions, which are a unique way of satisfying an interest or a specific demand. We should ask about the interests of each party because the objective of a negotiation is to reach the point where both our interests and those of the other party are satisfied, so that the agreement is fulfilled. We need to make our own interests known in order for them to be met, but we should never reveal how important our top priorities really are. It is also vital to know what others want, so that we don’t offer them too much.

B) – Options: . . . . . Once both parties’ interests have been identified, that is when solutions are proposed. The key is to come up with as many options as possible and settle on the one with the most value. It is important to create a space that allows for brainstorming, and to separate the output of options from the selection process. This allows us to maximize the chances of creating an option that achieves the highest possible satisfaction of the interests at stake.

 C) – Criteria for legitimacy: . . . . . When options abound, some will benefit one party, and some will benefit the other. The goal is to reach equitable agreements by means of shared criteria for legitimacy.

 D) – Alternatives: . . . . . This implies everything that can be done to satisfy our interests without needing the other party, away from the negotiating table. If there are alternatives, they will always have to offer us something better.

 E) – Relationship and communication: . . . . . In a negotiation, the goal is to spend as much time as possible talking about interests, options and criteria for legitimacy. This requires fluid communication and a fluid relationship. A variety of tools can be used to move from positions (demands of the negotiating parties) to interests (underlying needs that are not obvious). Foremost of these is the asking of open questions, showing genuine curiosity, without prejudice. We cannot have mindset of certainty; instead, we need to turn the negotiation into a learning-oriented conversation.

After asking a question, silence comes into play. When used properly, given the discomfort it generates, it can help us get answers. We must also be aware of the emotional reactions it triggers in us and not react to it if we do not wish to. Next, we have listening, which should be approached as a two-way tool: We must listen not only to understand, but also to make the other person feel heard. And to achieve this second aim, we must demonstrate our understanding. Here are three methods for doing so:

1. Repeating: . . . . .. The advantage is that it is very easy, but it does not really convey true understanding. There is no risk of mistakes; it allows us to continue the conversation.
2. Paraphrasing: . . . . .. To say the same thing in our own words conveys a greater degree of understanding, but does not allow the conversation to move forward; it is like an insurance policy for having a smooth communication.
3. Reformulating: . . . . .. This is a negotiator’s secret weapon, which opens any and all doors. It consists of constantly reflecting interests, making the person feel heard and understood. But, instead of echoing what they express, which is usually positions, it is about conveying the interests in a positive light while looking toward the future.

Again, the key to negotiation is changing mindsets. Simply by changing the purpose of the conversation, we will get better results. The very process of listening with genuine curiosity and showing understanding, not conformity, makes the relationship and communication flow, enabling negotiation to become an activity that strengthens relationships and maximizes value.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa