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

THE IMPOSTOR SYNDROME: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 01)

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

Impostor syndrome (also known as impostor phenomenon, impostor-ism, fraud syndrome or the impostor experience) is a psychological pattern in which an individual doubts their skills, talents, or accomplishments and has a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as a “fraud”. Impostor syndrome refers to an internal experience of believing that we are not as competent as others perceive us to be. While this definition is usually narrowly applied to intelligence and achievement, it has links to perfectionism and the social context.

To put it simply, imposter syndrome is the experience of feeling like a phony—we feel as though at any moment we are going to be found out as a fraud—like we do not belong where we are, and we only got there through dumb luck. It can affect anyone no matter their social status, work background, skill level, or degree of expertise.

Impostor syndrome is different from the standard “fake it until you make it” in that impostor syndrome impacts people who have already made it in a big way. People like Neil Armstrong, Michelle Obama, and Tom Hanks have all had bouts with impostor syndrome. If people who’ve achieved that level of success feel impostor syndrome, it’s a pretty normal feeling for any of us to feel the same.

Imposter syndrome takes up a lot of emotional energy and physical time, both of which we could be investing in our business, relationships, or personal life. It can also drive hesitation and prevent us from taking on opportunities that can propel our success. Imposter syndrome also occurs in normal human-to-human relationships. Based on this syndrome, continuing doubts about people and individual defense mechanisms are considered difficult to achieve healthy relationships.

Despite external evidence of their competence, those experiencing this phenomenon remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve all they have achieved. Individuals with impostorism incorrectly attribute their success to luck, or interpret it as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent than they perceive themselves to be.

Common Characteristics of Imposter Syndrome

Causes of Imposter Syndrome

While for some people, impostor syndrome can fuel thoughts of motivation to achieve, this usually comes at a cost in the form of constant anxiety. We might over-prepare or work much harder than necessary to “make sure” that nobody finds out we are a fraud. This sets up a vicious cycle, in which we think that the only reason we survived that class presentation was that we stayed up all night rehearsing. The problem with impostor syndrome is that the experience of doing well at something does nothing to change our beliefs. It’s as though we cannot internalize our experiences of success.

This makes sense in terms of social anxiety if we received early feedback that we were not good at social or performance situations. Our core beliefs about ourselves are so strong, that they do not change, even when there is evidence to the contrary. The thought process is: If we do well, it must be the result of luck because a socially incompetent person just doesn’t belong.

Impostor Syndrome and Social Anxiety

Eventually, these feelings worsen anxiety and may lead to depression. People who experience impostor syndrome also tend not to talk about how they are feeling with anyone and struggle in silence, just as do those with social anxiety disorder.

Impostor syndrome and social anxiety may overlap. We might be in a conversation with someone and feel as though they are going to discover our social incompetence. We might be delivering a presentation and feel as though we just need to get through it before anyone realizes we really don’t belong there. While the symptoms of social anxiety can fuel feelings of impostor syndrome, this does not mean that everyone with impostor syndrome has social anxiety or vice versa. People without social anxiety can also feel a lack of confidence and competence. Impostor syndrome often causes normally non-anxious people to experience a sense of anxiety when they are in situations where they feel inadequate.

Identifying Impostor Syndrome

Self reflective inquiry can help in the identification Some of these stimulus may be:

The negative thinking, self-doubt, and self-sabotage that often characterize imposter syndrome can have an effect on many areas of our life.

Impostor syndrome Appearance

Impostor syndrome can appear in a number of different ways:

Impostor Syndrome and Procrastination

Impostor syndrome can send us into some very interesting cycles of procrastination and over preparation.

1. Impostor syndrome drives us to over-prepare or procrastinate achievement-related tasks
2. The results of our over preparation and procrastination feed more impostor syndrome. 

It’s a cycle called the Impostor Cycle. Here’s how it works. Think about having done something in the past – any achievement-related task like taking a test, giving a presentation at work, playing an open-mic night, or even writing an article.  Here is how it flows:

The Procrastination Path

If we procrastinate on that task, then we will rush at the end of our procrastination habit to cram in the work we have to do. In this situation, no one knows that we procrastinated except for us. When the task goes well, a normal feedback-loop would boost our confidence. But in the Impostor Cycle loop, we discount the positive feedback that we receive because we know that we procrastinated. We start to feel like we have fooled people yet again and did not earn that positive feedback. 

The next time we receive a task, we know that this could be the time that we fail and people figure out that we have been a fraud the entire time. So our ego kicks and it avoids the task and procrastinates again. This creates a see-saw battle between procrastination and impostor syndrome that is challenging to interrupt.

Over Preparation Path

Over preparation has two potential impostor cycles.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Root causes, measuring Imposter Syndrome, Ways to identify and cope) – Link to Chapter -02:

THE IMPOSTOR SYNDROME: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 02)

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY: BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED

Story – The Ivy Lee Method:

By 1918, Charles M. Schwab was one of the richest men in the world. Schwab was the president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the largest shipbuilder, and the second-largest steel producer in America at the time. The famous inventor Thomas Edison once referred to Schwab as the “master hustler.” He was constantly seeking an edge over the competition. One day in 1918, in his quest to increase the efficiency of his team and discover better ways to get things done, Schwab arranged a meeting with a highly respected productivity consultant named Ivy Lee. Lee was a successful businessman in his own right and is widely remembered as a pioneer in the field of public relations.

The Ivy Lee Method:. . . . . . . . During his 15 minutes with each executive, Ivy Lee explained this simple set of daily routine steps for achieving peak productivity:

1. At the end of each workday, write down the six most important things you need to accomplish tomorrow.
2. Do not write down more than six tasks.
3. Prioritize those six items in order of their true importance.
4. When you arrive tomorrow, concentrate only on the first task.
5. Work until the first task is finished before moving on to the second task.
6. Approach the rest of your list in the same fashion.
7. At the end of the day, move any unfinished items to a new list of six tasks for the following day.
8. Repeat this process every working day.

The strategy sounded simple, but Schwab and his executive team at Bethlehem Steel gave it a try. After three months, Schwab was so delighted with the progress his company had made that he called Lee into his office and wrote him a check for $25,000. A $25,000 check written in 1918 is the equivalent of a $400,000 check in 2015.

The Ivy Lee Method of prioritizing our to-do list seems stupidly simple. How could something this simple be worth so much?

A) It is simple enough to actually work: . . . . . . . . The primary critique of methods like this one is that they are too basic. They do not account for all of the complexities and nuances of life. What happens if an emergency pops up? What about using the latest technology to our fullest advantage? Sometimes, complexity is actually a weakness because it makes it harder to get back on track. Emergencies and unexpected distractions will arise. Ignoring them as much as possible, dealing with them when we must, and getting back to our prioritized to-do list as soon as possible is what brings productivity. The use of simple rules to guide complex behaviour often serves the best results.

B) It forces us to make tough decisions: . . . . . . . . . There is nothing magical about Lee’s number of six important tasks per day. It could just as easily be five tasks per day. However, there is something magical about imposing limits upon ourselves. Sometimes, the single best thing to do when we have too many ideas (or when we are overwhelmed by everything we need to get done) is to prune our ideas and trim away everything that is not absolutely necessary. Constraints can make us better. Lee’s method is similar to Warren Buffett’s 25-5 Rule, which requires us to focus on just 5 critical tasks and ignore everything else. Basically, if we commit to nothing, we will be distracted by everything.

C) It removes the friction of starting: . . . . . . . . . The biggest hurdle to finishing most tasks is starting them. Lee’s method forces us to decide on our first task the night before we go to work. If we decide the night before, we can start work immediately the next day, and not end up wasting time deciding what needs our attention. It is simple, but it works. In the beginning, getting started is just as important as succeeding at all.

Another tool that could be useful here is known as the Eisenhower Box (or Eisenhower Matrix) and it’s a simple decision-making tool. General Dwight Eisenhower had an incredible ability to sustain his productivity for weeks and months. And for that reason, it is no surprise that his methods for time management, task management, and productivity have been studied by many people. Before becoming the 34th President of the United States, Eisenhower was a five-star general in the United States Army, served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, and was responsible for planning and executing invasions of North Africa, France, and Germany.

D) It requires us to single-task: . . . . . . . . . Modern society loves multi-tasking. The myth of multi-tasking is that being busy is synonymous with being better. The exact opposite is true. Having fewer priorities leads to better work. World-class experts in nearly any field—athletes, artists, scientists, teachers, CEOs—have one characteristic that runs through all of them: focus. The reason is simple. We cannot be great at one task if we are constantly dividing our time ten different ways. Mastery requires focus and consistency. The bottom line? Do the most important thing first each day. It’s the only productivity trick we need.

The Myth of Multitasking: Why Fewer Priorities Leads to Better Work

The word priority did not always mean what it does today. In his best-selling book, Essentialism (audiobook), Greg McKeown explains the surprising history of the word and how its meaning has shifted over time.

Yes, we are capable of doing two things at the same time. It is possible, for example, to watch TV while cooking dinner or to answer an email while talking on the phone. What is impossible, however, is concentrating on two tasks at once. Multitasking forces our brain to switch back and forth very quickly from one task to another. This would not be a big deal if the human brain could transition seamlessly from one job to the next, but it cannot. Multitasking forces us to pay a mental price each time we interrupt one task and jump to another. In psychology terms, this mental price is called the switching cost. Switching cost is the disruption in performance that we experience when we switch our attention from one task to another.

For example, A 2003 study published in the International Journal of Information Management found that the typical person checks email once every five minutes and that, on average, it takes 64 seconds to resume the previous task after checking your email. In other words, because of email alone, we typically waste one out of every six minutes.

The myth of multitasking is that it will make us more effective. In reality, remarkable focus is what makes the difference. While we are on the subject, the word multitasking first appeared in 1965 IBM report talking about the capabilities of its latest computer.

Finding Your Anchor Task: . .. . . . . . .  . Doing more things does not drive faster or better results. Doing better things drives better results. Even more accurately, doing one thing as best you can, drives better results. The power of choosing one priority is that it naturally guides our behavior by forcing us to organize our life around that responsibility. Our priority becomes an anchor task, the mainstay that holds the rest of our day in place. If things get crazy, there is no debate about what to do or not to do. We have already decided what is urgent and what is important.

Saying No to Being Busy: . . . . . . . . As a society, we have fallen into a trap of busyness and overwork. In many ways, we have mistaken all this activity to be something meaningful. The underlying thought seems to be, “Look how busy I am? If I am doing all this work, I must be doing something important.” And, by extension, “I must be important because I’m so busy.” The people who do the most valuable work have a remarkable willingness to say no to distractions and focus on their one thing.

Implementation Intentions: Mastering One Thing at a Time

Many people have multiple areas of life they would like to improve. The problem is, even if we are committed to working hard on our goals, our natural tendency is to revert back to our old habits at some point. Making a permanent lifestyle change is difficult.

The approach to mastering many areas of life is somewhat counterintuitive. If we want to master multiple habits and stick to them for good, then we need to figure out how to be consistent. How can we do that? Research has shown that we are 2x to 3x more likely to stick with our habits if we make a specific plan for when, where, and how we will perform the behavior. For example, in one study scientists asked people to fill out this sentence: “During the next week, I will partake in at least 20 minutes of vigorous exercise on [DAY] at [TIME OF DAY] at/in [PLACE].”

Psychologists call these specific plans “implementation intentions” because they state when, where, and how we intend to implement a particular behavior. For example, implementation intentions have been found to increase the odds that people will start exercising, begin recycling, stick with studying, and even stop smoking. However (and this is crucial to understand) follow-up research has discovered that implementation intentions only work when we focus on one thing at a time.

When we begin practicing a new habit it requires a lot of conscious effort to remember to do it. After a while, however, the pattern of behavior becomes easier. Eventually, our new habit becomes a normal routine, and the process is more or less mindless and automatic. Automaticity is the ability to perform a behavior without thinking about each step, which allows the pattern to become automatic and habitual. But here is the thing: automaticity only occurs as the result of lots of repetition and practice. The more reps we put in, the more automatic a behavior becomes. The most important thing to note is that there is some “tipping point” at which new habits become more or less automatic. The time it takes to build a habit depends on many factors including how difficult the habit is, what our environment is like, our genetics, and more.

The counterintuitive insight from all of this research is that the best way to change our entire life is by not changing our entire life. Instead, it is best to focus on one specific habit, work on it until we master it, and make it an automatic part of our daily life. Then, repeat the process for the next habit. The way to master more things in the long run is to simply focus on one thing right now.

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.