Skip to comments.
Is the way you think biased? Here are 3 common mistakes to watch out for (Klaus Schwab's WEF tells us how to think)
World Economic Forum ^
| April 22, 2022
| Jon Hay
Posted on 04/24/2022 7:50:46 PM PDT by DoodleBob
- Cognitive biases lead us to generate false conclusions which can in turn have negative consequences.
- Recognizing, understanding and acknowledging cognitive biases is therefore important work, says sketch artist Jono Hey.
- His illustrations highlight three common cognitive biases that can impact our day-to-day lives.
In a world of information overload, we can fall victim to all sorts of cognitive biases. Since they can lead us to generate false conclusions, it’s particularly important to understand what these biases are and how they work, as the consequences can become quite drastic.
Confirmation bias, sampling bias, and brilliance bias are three examples that can affect our ability to critically engage with information. Jono Hey of Sketchplanations walks us through these cognitive bias examples, to help us better understand how they influence our day-to-day lives.
Confirmation bias
There is a danger of reinforcing stereotypes.
Image: Visual Capitalist/Sketchplanations
One of the most-commonly encountered and understood, you’re likely to have already heard about confirmation bias. This cognitive bias affects the way we test and evaluate hypotheses every day.
In simple terms, confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out or interpret evidence in such a way that supports our own strongly-held beliefs or expectations. This means that, given access to the same set of data and information, different people can come to wildly differing conclusions.
Feeding into confirmation bias can lead us to make ill-informed choices or even reinforce negative stereotypes. For this reason, it is important to remember to seek out information that both confirms and contradicts your presumptions about a certain topic.
Sampling bias
Wrong information presented to us can lead us to form a belief which is untrue.
Image: Visual Capitalist/Sketchplanations
Sampling bias is a kind of bias that allows us to come to faulty conclusions based on inaccurate sample groups or data. Generally, the cause of sample bias is in poor study design and data collection.
When polling individuals for survey questions, it is important to get a representative picture of an entire population. But this can prove surprisingly difficult when the people generating the study are also prone to human flaws, including cognitive biases.
A common example involves conducting a survey on which political party is likely to win an election. If the study is run by a professor who only polls college students, since they are around and therefore easier to collect information from, the poll will not accurately reflect the opinions of the general population.
To avoid sampling bias, it is important to randomize data collection to ensure responses are not skewed towards individuals with similar characteristics.
Brilliance bias
This is due to a lack of female representation in academic and executive positions.
Image: Visual Capitalist/Sketchplanations
Brilliance bias is another common cognitive bias that makes us more likely to think of genius as a masculine trait. This is in part due to the lack of female representation in both traditional academic and executive positions.
In fact, The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology published an in-depth study on brilliance bias in 2020. It suggests that a likely source of this bias is in the uneven distribution of men and women across careers typically associated with higher level intelligence.
While this distribution is a remnant of historical factors that limited access to education and career choices for women in the past, its presence has made us (wrongly) conclude that women are less brilliant instead. Naturally, as the cycle perpetuates the uneven distribution of women in these careers, it only reinforces this bias.
Other cognitive bias examples
These few examples from Jono Hey give a good overview of some of the biases we face when trying to understand the data given to us, but they are just the tip of the iceberg.
It is important to be cognizant of these biases in an era where we are constantly engaging with information, especially if we want to combat some of the harmful consequences they entail.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; klaus4zelensky; klausschwab; wef; wef4zelensky; zelensky4wef
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
...and then I said "You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.”
1
posted on
04/24/2022 7:50:46 PM PDT
by
DoodleBob
To: DoodleBob
Pic is worth a thousand words.
I can think of one: Evil
2
posted on
04/24/2022 7:57:23 PM PDT
by
lgjhn23
(Pray for America....)
To: DoodleBob
The clearest indication of bias os that one thinks in ways that Big Brother would disapprove of. One must steadfastly banish such rubbish from one’s mind!
3
posted on
04/24/2022 7:59:18 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(They're not the mainstream media, they're the gaslight media. It's what they do. )
To: DoodleBob
That Schwab sounds like a nazi. He talks with nazi thinking. He dad was a nazi.
Screw his assaholic lectures.
4
posted on
04/24/2022 7:59:55 PM PDT
by
DesertRhino
(Dogs are called man's best friend. Moslems hate dogs. Add it up..)
To: DoodleBob
Anal Schwab. Somebody send us a nazi from central casting.
5
posted on
04/24/2022 8:02:57 PM PDT
by
HYPOCRACY
(This is the dystopian future we've been waiting for!)
To: DoodleBob
Confirmation bias: “If we cancel all the other thoughts so the only one you read is ours, over and over again, you must agree, right?”
Sampling bias: “We will delete all the facts that don’t support the thought we want you to have. Science!”
Brilliance bias: “We dressed this autocrat up in a white coat and you’re supposed to believe him even though he’s been lying since the 1980s when he was busy killing gay AIDS people. Also try not to think too hard about how the doofus/idiot/loser in every commercial and sitcom is a CISwhitemale, and only POCs and alphabet people have anything smart to say on TV.”
6
posted on
04/24/2022 8:04:56 PM PDT
by
No.6
To: DoodleBob
Everyone is biased through their life experiences. Being biased is a neutral characteristic.
To: DoodleBob
We have the Free Republic unearthing blog to help us out and make frequent use of it.
If I could make correct stock purchase decision reliably, I would have no financial worries.
The big problem for my beach cottage craving ladyfriend is that the truth is not always obvious.
To: DoodleBob
I am getting inundated in mental manure at an unprecedented rate.
The basis for decision making is now greatly weakened.
To: DesertRhino
One man denken.
All other persons mussen glauben.
Verstehen Sie?
To: DoodleBob
Life can also be unpredictable.
To: DoodleBob
Reminds me of:
Except now it's not comedy, it's farce.
12
posted on
04/24/2022 8:33:27 PM PDT
by
P.O.E.
To: DoodleBob
I am definitely biased against:
1. Big, out-of-control government
2. Democrats
3. Lefties
4. Liberals
5. DNC
6. CNN
7. MSNBC
8. Low-information voters
9. The Seattle City Council
10. Jay Inslee
And others...
13
posted on
04/24/2022 8:52:24 PM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God gives countless clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
To: Savage Rider
Certain “leaders” use accusations of bias to avoid addressing competing ideas, which bias claims they of course never apply to themselves.
To: lgjhn23
Although Ernst Stavro Schwab doesn’t quite fit the requirements for the Antichrist he’s an excellent match for level of evil. I contend that at this point he’s the most dangerously evil individual on the planet. People like Xi, Putin and Kim are massively evil, but their evil is more about nationalism than globalism. And nationalism is not necessarily bad, only if it’s employed by bad actors. Globalism is 100% evil.
15
posted on
04/24/2022 9:02:39 PM PDT
by
allblues
(God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat but Satan is definitely a Democrat)
To: lgjhn23
Although Ernst Stavro Schwab doesn’t quite fit the requirements for the Antichrist he’s an excellent match for level of evil. I contend that at this point he’s the most dangerously evil individual on the planet. People like Xi, Putin and Kim are massively evil, but their evil is more about nationalism than globalism. And nationalism is not necessarily bad, only if it’s employed by bad actors. Globalism is 100% evil.
16
posted on
04/24/2022 9:03:41 PM PDT
by
allblues
(God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat but Satan is definitely a Democrat)
To: DoodleBob
Obama was regurgitating the same talking points in his Stanford word salad justifying Big Tech censorship.
17
posted on
04/24/2022 9:54:45 PM PDT
by
SecondAmendment
(This just proves my latest theory ... LEFTISTS RUIN EVERYTHING !!!)
To: DoodleBob
I suffer from Anal Schwab bias. I think Klaus is an a$$hole, when in reality he ia a anal tumor caked in feces.
18
posted on
04/24/2022 10:04:59 PM PDT
by
griffin
(When you have to shoot, SHOOT; don't talk. -Tuco)
To: DoodleBob
It is quite valid to point out Confirmation Bias and Sampling Bias: They routinely affect people regardless of their particular "slant."
But then, why throw in this particularistic "Brilliance Bias," which applies only to a misperception (if, indeed, it is a misperception) that most of the brilliant figures in history have been men and thus women are "less brilliant?"
First of all, anyone making the neutral observation (that the greatest individuals in History have been men, and that women are strangely lacking in that cohort) - it's neutral because it's TRUE! - has done nothing wrong.
BUT - He is suffering from the Apex Fallacy if he then proceeds to assume that this proves that men, as a whole are more intelligent than women as a whole. That's because, while all the great (military, scientific, religious, etc.) leaders in History may have been men, MOST men have still been only poor schlubs. That nearly all "great personalities" have been men does not alter the fact that 99.9% of all men have still led lives of "quiet desperation," with no recognition, no perks, no accolades.
By the same token, those who tell us that the female sex has been oppressed throughout History by "The Patriarchy" likewise ignore the fact that 99.9% of all men have also been oppressed by established power structures - i.e., the lot of most men has been barely distinguishable from the lot of all women. Hardly fair to call this a "Patriarchy!"
The fact is that the Bell Curve for men has leading (= brilliant) and trailing (= imbecilic) edges that extend out somewhat farther than the Bell Curve for the female sex. (The male Bell Curve for I.Q. is thus "flatter.")
There are thus more brilliant men than brilliant women - but also more idiotic men than idiotic women.
Still, my question stands: Why does the author of this contribution enumerate two standard biases - and then a third strangely specific bias?
That, itself, is indicative of some inherent bias, I would venture to say!
Regards,
19
posted on
04/24/2022 10:43:09 PM PDT
by
alexander_busek
(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
To: DoodleBob
Are we supposed to believe this rubbish? Brilliance Bias includes only the binary genders. There are at least 57, from what I’ve been told.
20
posted on
04/24/2022 11:54:52 PM PDT
by
FrdmLvr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson