If you want to learn about the other 99 cognitive biases people are unwittingly carrying around (perhaps you, too), check out Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I'm by no means a neuroscientist, but Veritasium made an interesting video based on the popular science book Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman.
Check out a book called “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. It goes into this type of stuff, and how we have two types of systems in our brain that do what you’re describing.
This applies to almost all issues too, plane accidents being one of the more obvious ones (plane travel is many times safer than car travel, and yet many people don't see it that way).
Thinking Fast and Slow is a great book that covers at length recency bias and its affects . Quite eye opening to me was one study where people were asked to spin a wheel with 1-100, and then asked how many African nations are in the UN. The number on the wheel had a profound affect on the number people picked , despite the fact that the number on the wheel should clearly has no meaning.
I'll recommend some books that I'm reading right now
Thinking, fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman
Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan
Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan
Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman by Richard Feynman
Why Nations Fail by Robinson and Acemoglu
In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations
The Terrorist Prince: The Life and Death of Murtaza Bhutto
>no one tried to tell my that my thinking is wrong
It's a difficult task, because the way our brains work makes personal experience supersede external information that contradict it, even when scientifically, objectively, our experience is... not "wrong" per se, but so incomplete that it veers into "wrong" teritory. I teach people how to get along with people, which is mainly applied psichology and neurology (specifically social neurology), so I come against this feature (it's not a bug, it's a feature) every time. For reference: Daniel Kahnemann's work . For reference: Chris Niebauer's book .
Your brain dupes you (it meakes you wrong, giving you the impression you're right) in several key areas relevant to our discussion here:
In your case, in order to examine what biases are in play and what is their result, I'd start questioning the hidden meaning of your use of notions like "chad", "betabux" and such. It speaks to overgeneralization (with a heavy serving of dehumanization) and confirmation bias.
Humans are unique. There are, of course, trends (sociology doesn't exist for nothing) but so far no human being looks and act exactly like another human being always and in all aspects; more, humans change over time: experience, opinions, world views and behavior shift as time passes. That would be the first step I'd take if I were you: stop working with archetypes and start looking for tiny differences. The world will get extremely rich if you do that.
TL;DR: you're wrong, but your brains won't let you see that and you have to voluntarily challenge it to improve your life quality.
Edited to add: and I didn't even touch the issue of cultural and social norms and conditioning, learned helplesness and many other phenomena that interfere and change all the stuff above.
Humans are not intuitively good at probability and statistics, because of numerous cognitive biases. -Thinking: Fast & Slow
Also reading through your posts I see you think Columbus traffic is unusually bad, even though we have some of the lowest congestion and commute times of any major metro.
I also see that you think we've reach essentially unprecedented levels of violence, when though it's much lower here and most everywhere else as there is been a steady decline for decades.
Both of the above (definitely) and the development discussion (possibly) are examples of the availability heuristic, a natural tendency to use mental shortcuts to draw conclusions based in the most readily accessible and available information.
Media and crime is the prime example. For example, crime deceased by 40% in 90's but media coverage quadrupled so people thought crime was increasing.
So it seems with traffic, crime, and development, you're drawing incorrect conclusions from things that are immediately available (stuck in traffic, crime in the news, the HQ2 proposal).
Since one of my favorite books, Thinking, Fast and Slow is about this and other cognitive heuristics and biases plus how to avoid them. And it's by one of the Nobel Economist (technically psychologists but Nobel in Economics) who first discovered these, I thought it may be useful to advertise the book and point out something you may find beneficial.
This post looks a bit condescending after writing it out, but I don't mean it that way. And I would recommend the book to everybody since it's useful and we're all prone to these things.
Hi Keatz01, it sounds like you already have a pretty cool background, so I'll limit these recommendations to what might be useful for you now.
The Lean Startup : Eric Ries (2011), is an easy read and I have found it useful to be familiar with the terminology/practical tips that it mentions. His 2017 extension has not been quite so well received.
Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick : Bradley, Hirt and Smit (2018), is also accessible (albeit labored at times), and offers a few suggestions for new ways to think about quantifying the value of innovation (economic profit, in a nutshell). Despite being a McKinsey special, I felt like the explanation of their methodologies was lacking.
Thinking Fast and Slow : Daniel Kahneman (2013), is one of my favorite books, and discusses the way people think. It offers an excellent insight to behavioral economics and better develops on what you might find in Gladwell's Blink (2007).
Games People Play : Eric Berne (1966), is a fun read, not much more, and can give insight to typical behavioral patterns.
Harvard Business Review: I'm sure you know it, but some of these articles can be really insightful. Look for articles that are contextualized against data and/or case studies.
The McKinsey Quarterly: Tends to be more 'hit' than 'miss', but their introduction of the 'Five Fifty' section (where you take five minutes to decide whether investing close on an hour would be useful) has been nice.
Case in Point : Marc Cosentino (2018), is probably my highest recommendation for a casing primer. The skills are useful to have so that you can efficiently consider a problem.
Hopefully something in there proves useful. Beyond that, it's more a case of staying up-to-date. Stay abreast of emergent technology so that you know whether it's useful, take time to reassess current solutions now and then, etc etc. The next one on my reading list is /u/eliteregos' recommendation for The Trusted Advisor .
All the best!
Also check out a book called Thinking Fast and Slow
I find game theory far more interesting than pure economics (even to understand economics), there's plenty of material online about it, but the basic games with historical context you can find here: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL118148W/Prisoner's_dilemma
Review of the book: https://plus.maths.org/issue34/reviews/book3/2pdf/index.html/op.pdf
It is a biography of Von Neumann but full of game theoretic exerts.
People always recommend me another book, about decision making (closed related to economics): https://toptalkedbooks.com/amzn/0374533555
This one I never read, plan to.
I've personally spent a lot of time on Less Wrong, but... I do have to admit that it's kind of an insular place using their own made-up jargon to promote strange ideas. Overall I approve of it and don't put much stock in the usual criticisms, but I wouldn't direct people to it if I wanted to convince them of anything.
Instead, I'd direct them to the book Thinking, Fast and Slow . It's just as accessible as Less Wrong's better-written posts, it covers a lot of the same stuff, and it's written by someone with the credentials to back up their claims.
And best of all, it includes regular examples that demonstrate your own biases to you. Examples like this, where you can actually catch your own brain making a mistake, are more likely to get through to someone who doesn't believe in, say, racial or gender bias.
Further reading for anyone who is interested in chance and psychology...
Fooled By Randomness
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives
The Improbability Principle
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Survivorship Bias - You Are Not So Smart
Nu le-am citit pe cele de sus, dar din ce zici, seamănă cu Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow .
I can feel your frustration.
There are a couple of books about this type of error we make as humans. I think this book seems to explain these things very well (but I am only 30 pages in - did someone already read this and can confirm):
Philosophy is such a massive field, it can be hard to know where to start and I've barely touched the surface with what I've read. I'd recommend looking up the major categories of philosophy, what they mean and then searching on /r/askphilosophy for recommendations in that category.
Some of it can be really hard to dig into - and can seem very impractical. I like reading about Stoic philosophy and Buddhist philosophy(through a secular lens) because I find they are centered around direct day-to-day life and they focus on "living well".
I'm starting to look into reads within Ethics as that is really fascinating and I feel practical. However, I don't have any recommendations there yet.
Psychology is also so huge. I'd start with some pop-psychology to get excited about some of the concepts and more practical findings before moving on to straight up college psychology textbooks. I started out with a lot of books on psychological applications in business, sales, persuasion, identifying scams and all that. Then later on I picked up some college textbooks and read through those.
Try this one for some really fun and practical reading in psychology: https://toptalkedbooks.com/amzn/0374533555
A chi è interessato consiglio questo libro, se non sbaglio contiene anche il quesito proposto nell'articolo!
I'm right now in the middle of this book Thinking, Fast and Slow that breaks down exactly what is going on in our minds here.
Basically, there's two different systems at work, the fast one and the slow one, and we're the arbiter between. The fast one is lazy. It reads that the store owner gave up $100 and then gave back $30 and lazily reports the loss of $130 (or maybe some other number).
The brain is very accepting of the fast answer. The slow system needs to not only blow a whistle and let us know something is off but then has the job of isolating the numbers, doing the math and figuring out not only where the problem is, but what the right answer is. Making things worse, the slow part is very fragile. If we are tired, sick, or in a bad mood, we're even less likely to bother with the slow thinking.
So it is a riddle because it's trying to get you to trust your fast system over anything else.
I got you fam
It'll change the way you think.
I'm not trying to be all holier than thou, and what not. I just really liked the book and when I read things and really like them I try to push them onto people. When you talked about the internal debate of 'what I know is logically right' and 'what I feel is right' it just triggered me, as that is a big concept of what the book covers.
Two books that I'd highly recommend are: