Focusing Illusions in Decision-Making

Share

Focusing illusion
We talk a lot about the power of focus in business and in our lives. Yet, unless we learn to pay attention to the right things, the act of focusing becomes an illusion and our decisions bear that disconnect.

In Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life, Winifred Gallagher sets out to help us understand how our minds are powerful tools in sorting wheat from chaff. Providing we train ourselves to see the distinction.

The chapter about decisions and focusing illusions draws on the work on decision-making of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Twersky “made the art of refined query into a science.” She says:

According to the principles of “bonded rationality,” which Kahneman first applied to economic decisions and more recently to choices concerning quality of life, we are reasonable-enough beings but sometimes liable to focus on the wrong things. Our thinking gets befuddled not so much by our emotions, but by our “cognitive illusions,” or mistaken intuitions, and other flawed, fragmented mental constructs.

Facing a choice, for example, you might focus on the quickest, most accessible solution, rather than taking the time to think things through. When making a choice that affects your long-term future, you might mistakenly concentrate on very short-term concerns. “That’s why following every detail of your financial situation is a problem, unless you get pleasure from it,” says Kahneman. “If you focus too much on each issue separately, considering each loss and gain in isolation, you make mistakes.”

Our loss aversion overwhelms any thought of gain or benefit from a situation, for example. We also tend to create abstractions when we look to answer questions about our lives. But, says Gallagher:

The problem is that this type of abstract evaluation “isn’t looking at how people actually experience their lives,” says Kahneman, “but how they think about their lives. That distinction has been my entry into well-being research.”

[…]

How you decide to spend your time and make other choices that affect your quality of life is closely bound up with attention, which “governs how people think about well-being,” Kahneman says, “and also governs the experience.”

Kahneman “points out two ways in which focusing on the wrong thing can skew” our choices:

First, there’s a gap between your real life and the stories you tell yourself about it, and you’re apt to fixate on the latter. Stressing the importance of this divide, Kahneman says, “Attention both to what you choose to experience and what you choose to think about it is at the very core of how I approach questions of well-being.”

We are thus split into two kinds of selves that pay attention to different things. Our “experiencing self” is the one that thinks in the here and now, our evaluative “remembering self” looks back at what happened, the emotional high points and outcomes to create thinking. The latter is not always accurate — we recall the highlights and not the low moments.

We also consider some things more important when we’re prompted to think about them. It can be difficult to evaluate the quality of an experience divorced from the remembering self. Gallagher says:

Unless you’re a Zen sage like Yoda, however, shifting  your attention from thinking into being is harder than it might seem at first. For one thing, as soon as you try, you’re apt to revert to your remembering self.

[…]

Like focusing too much on the opinions of your remembering self, overlooking the effects of adaptation — the process of becoming used to a situation — can obstruct wise decisions about how to live.

[…]

This attentional myopia is especially problematic when you’re trying to make important decisions about the future.

One reason for poor decision-making is the abundance of choices. Greater choice paralyzes us and makes us poor strategists. We are seduced by having the option of greater selection in goods and access to a wider variety of experiences.

However, when faced with more than 8-10 choices, we either freeze or give up picking any. This is because rather than exercising focus, too many options deplete our cognitive load. As Schwarz says, “good enough is almost always good enough.”

How do we overcome myopia in decision-making? Gallagher says:

Remembering that your life is the sum of what you focus on helps you bring clarity to choices about where to spend that valuable mental money.

 


Conversation Agent – Valeria Maltoni

Share

Decision-making, Belief, and Behavioral Biases

Share

Social Biases

Cognitive Biases# are:

“tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics.”

[…]

“Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general.”

They show up in specific instances to help make a case either in the absence of statistical evidence, or as a reaction to statistical evidence.

For example, recently I shared an article by Adam Grant, tenured professor at Wharton and a leading expert on success, work motivation, and helping and giving behaviors. In the article – Dear Men: Wake Up and Smell the Inequality – Dr. Grant says:

In corporate America, 88% of men think women have at least as many opportunities to advance as men.

This is the finding of a major new study (link is external)—almost 30,000 employees across 118 companies—by LeanIn.org and McKinsey & Company.

Just 12% of men felt that women had fewer opportunities to advance in their organizations.

Yet when you look at the actual data, women’s odds of advancement are 15% lower than men’s.

Dr. Grant proposes two hypotheses to explain the phenomenon of asks why men are blind to gender bias. My direct experience is that biases are so embedded in culture that have become an accepted part of it and only managers who are supremely attuned to biases learn to factor them into their decision-making.

Whenever this kind of data-driven information makes the rounds, we have the opportunity to observe biases in the real world. Reactions range from statements that demonstrate availability heuristic:

The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater “availability” in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.

A reaction like, “in my company we have women as division managers, therefore that is not true,” may be an example that also neglects base rate or falls into base rate fallacy:

The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) and focus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).

Availability heuristic may also become an availability cascade:

A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or “repeat something long enough and it will become true”).

Because we say so, which ironically becomes the self-reinforcing mechanism that keeps us rooted into the set of beliefs that got us to where we are as a culture in the first place.

If the comments gain momentum — because people don’t converse: they comment. Big difference — then we have an example of the backfire effect:

When people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.

The greater the energy behind it, the faster we can observe the bandwagon effect:

The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.

The bandwagon effect is among the many social media behaviors that keep us from conversing and into the straight and narrow of fixed mindset or on the safer broadcasting side of things. 

How we communicate is an indication of how we relate. As I said in that post:

How we relate goes to what is important to us and in which stacking order. It depends on our values, our stage in life, our attitude, and our awareness.

Our decision-making improves when our ability to understand how our biases inform our beliefs and lead us astray improves. This is important, because we also have a blind spot bias:

The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.

This is just a few examples from the first couple of letters of the alphabet, and it excludes the social biases, also listed in the Wikipedia entry. A good method for improving our bias detector is to read from several sources and become familiar with diverse bodies of knowledge — and subject what we read to inquiry.

 

[image via]


Conversation Agent – Valeria Maltoni

Share