10 brain traps that end up distorting our reality

We are used to judging everything by ourselves. However, this is not the only subjective reason for the perception of the world. It seems that all people, to some extent, are susceptible to various cognitive distortions. Precisely these, in an explicit way, make our reality different from that of other people and, sometimes, precisely because of this, it is difficult for us to communicate and understand each other.

O awesome.club gathered some interesting pitfalls that each of us has fallen into more than once. Possibly, after becoming familiar with some of them, we can make reasoned and rational decisions.

Have you had the privilege of hearing the phrase “I knew it” from an acquaintance? Or maybe you yourself periodically use it? If the answer is yes, that means you’ve probably already faced bias.
of hindsight.

The essence of such a phenomenon consists in the fact that a person perceives events that have already taken place or proven facts as self-evident. However, in reality, she simply facilitates the situation and is unlikely to have foreseen the outcome from the very beginning. Therefore, hindsight bias creates a distorted memory in which individuals believe they always knew what was going to happen.

If you understand statistics very well, then easily with their help you can impose a deception on other people, the result of which you can formulate a certain picture of the world in your mind. Sometimes, based on the same data, reality can be exposed very differently.

Let’s assume we want to know the statistical average salary of a given company — the values ​​here are purely fictitious, to understand the concept. The director of the company earns 1700 dollars, 3 employees receive 100 dollars, a manager has a salary of 200 dollars, a designer is 300 and an accountant is 400 dollars. In total 7 people together including the boss. A simple average will likely show an average salary of $414. Also, there is the median. This is the number that is found exactly in half of the elements of the ordered sample, in which we see who earns more and who earns less. Taking the previous example, the median will equal $200 (the manager’s salary). Finally, we have the mode, which shows us the quantity that is repeated the most times within the data distribution in our case, which will be equal to 100 dollars. Thus, for candidates and for a company, different “average salaries” can be presented. Although both are based on statistical data.

So, as appropriate, when talking about a person’s financial health in a group, we can choose the most appropriate variant for a specific case.

Surely you’ve heard of this effect. However, even knowing this, we took the bait. Placebo is a substance with no obvious medicinal properties that provides a positive effect. It consists of a person thinking that he has received a medication and starts to feel better thanks to his imagination.

Also known as the focalism effect. Even if it seems that, before answering a question or making a decision, we carefully think about everything from different perspectives, this is not always the case. In fact, we come under the influence of the initial information.

Scientists conducted this experiment. Some students had to write the last three digits of their phone number and then answer the question “When did the Gothic people capture Rome?”. As a result, those who had the phone number with larger numbers responded with a much later date. And those who had phones with smaller numbers, with a much earlier date.

It is interesting that even if the subject is informed about such an event before the experiment, he still remains under its influence.

“This time, I’m sure I’ll be lucky!”. Have you ever heard that phrase? A person not only prefers to believe in the best, but is not always aware of the coincidence of the outcome of some events.

For example, we flip a coin and five times in a row it lands heads. The probability of getting heads on the sixth toss remains the same: 50%. However, we believe that the chances of getting tails increase after a sequence of heads. Although in reality there is no basis for this.

Therefore, people who, for example, gamble their money on games of chance, not only fall into chance and believe in luck, but are also dragged into a common cognitive trap.

We often read the stories of famous people, study their biography, wanting to be as successful as they are. However, the mistake lies in the fact that the one who became the “winner of life” cannot objectively speak about his experience. People who have become extremely successful and well-known, but whose opinion is not consulted by anyone, know much more about this path and the difficulties related to it.

Veterinarians know this paradox: cats that fall from a height of 6 floors or more arrive at the clinic more often than those that fall from a lower height. Naturally, the chances of surviving a fall from the seventh floor are lower than those of falling from a second floor. But we are guided by this: either the cat survives, if luck leaves him in good condition, or we simply do not take him to the clinic thinking that he died.

Do you know the game “Invent 100 Application Methods for Paper Clips”? In essence, this game is precisely meant to deal with functional fixity. In fact, it is much more difficult to imagine what can be done with an article than to use it in an unusual situation.

Due to functional fixity, sometimes we can’t solve some problems, since we go back to the original purpose of the topic. As a result, a person is not able to perform a “lateral leap” of thinking (take into account that a lateral thinking is the ability to think creatively), for this reason the problem remains unsolved, since few of us are able to see a chandelier in the box of clips, especially if they are inside the box. However, “survival professionals” do not pay much attention to the matter with the standard functions of an object.

Post-purchase rationalization (also known as the buyer’s Stockholm syndrome) is a particular case of cognitive distortion in the perception of a choice made. In a person, justifications often arise about its purchase, especially if it costs a considerable amount of money. We try to find reasonable arguments to convince ourselves that we did the right thing. Meanwhile, we completely ignore the shortcomings of a obtained product.

The essence of this cognitive distortion consists in the fact that we tend to exaggerate the value of those things whose creation we participated, at least partially. Which apartment will be more pleasant: the one you bought completely finished or the one whose decoration and renovation were done by you?

People like to be right, to be right. And this is related to your self-esteem and also to the fact that sometimes mistakes cost us a lot. That’s why we always try to find arguments that justify our point of view, although sometimes we unconsciously filter out information that goes against our opinion.

Imagine that you are arguing with someone, for example, about the benefits of coffee, and you consider that it is harmful. For not reaching a common agreement, you are directed to an internet search to verify the information. What will your search query look like? “What benefits does coffee have?” We doubt it very much.

What cognitive distortions do you know that prevent objective perception of the world?