Skip to main content

In the book You Are Not So Smart, by David McRaney, can you think of intrinsic (personal) and extrinsic (situational) variables that will increase...

There are plenty of intrinsic and extrinsic variables that increase the use of heuristics and biases, as both of these are commonly used by the human brain to simplify and categorize the world. An example of an intrinsic variable that increases reliance on heuristics and biases would be the need for security. Humans have an intrinsic need to feel safe and secure, which leads us to adopt heuristics and biases that keep us safe. While biases can cause us to reject new ideas, people, and experiences because of perceived risk, they also serve the purpose of maintaining security. For example, the ambiguity effect is caused by an intrinsic variable that results in the tendency to avoid making decisions about the unknown. In this case, personal knowledge is the intrinsic variable that leads to the adoption of the ambiguity effect.


An extrinsic variable that leads to the use of heuristics is social confirmation. The bandwagon effect is a bias that refers to the tendency to believe an idea is legitimate simply because many other people have adopted it. This bias relies on extrinsic or situational variables, including the opinions of others and the rate at which an idea or action has been adopted.


Here are four times people use different heuristics:


1) As a consumer


As consumers, we often use the representativeness heuristic to make judgments about the people we see in advertisements. The familiarity heuristic comes into play when we choose brands we recognize over unfamiliar brands. The escalation of commitment heuristic can be seen in the tendency to "stick with" a product or service that worked in the past.


2) As a voter


As a voter, the escalation of commitment heuristic often leads people to remain with the same political party without examining whether it currently serves their beliefs. Naive diversification comes into play when voters are asked to choose from several candidates at once without having a significant amount of information about any of them. Voters tend to choose more diverse options than they would if given a choice of one candidate at a time. The representativeness heuristic also affects how we see political candidates. Based on a small amount of information, such as appearance, we come to a variety of conclusions about a candidate's moral character and prospective performance in office.


3) As a student


As a student, anchoring and adjustment lead to the tendency to rely on information obtained in early classes. Naive diversification makes students guess more broadly than they normally would on tests with multiple answer choices. The escalation of commitment can explain why someone remains in a major that makes him or her unhappy. Because the student has invested time and effort in the major, it is perceived as having more value than the others.


4) As someone’s friend, boyfriend, or girlfriend


The escalation of commitment tends to factor heavily into platonic and romantic relationships. After investing an extensive amount of time and effort into a relationship, people are more likely to try to "make it work" than if they are involved in a new relationship. This heuristic leads people to stay in dysfunctional relationships for much longer than they should. The familiarity heuristic causes people to believe a person's past behavior is an adequate indicator of present behavior, which can lead to conflict and resentment if the partner has gone through significant emotional or behavioral changes. Finally, the anchoring and adjustment heuristic causes people to judge their friends and partners based on their behavior early on in the relationship. This can lead to issues when behavior naturally changes as the relationship progress and each party becomes more comfortable with expressing other facets of his or her personality.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more