diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/Bias.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/Bias.cs
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a05fdd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/Bias.cs
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+namespace AIStudio.Settings.DataModel;
+
+public sealed class Bias
+{
+ ///
+ /// The unique identifier of the bias.
+ ///
+ public Guid Id { get; init; } = Guid.Empty;
+
+ ///
+ /// In which category the bias is located.
+ ///
+ public BiasCategory Category { get; set; } = BiasCategory.NONE;
+
+ ///
+ /// The bias description.
+ ///
+ public string Description { get; init; } = string.Empty;
+
+ ///
+ /// Related bias.
+ ///
+ public IReadOnlyList Related { get; init; } = [];
+
+ ///
+ /// Related links.
+ ///
+ public IReadOnlyList Links { get; init; } = [];
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f892487
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs
@@ -0,0 +1,5737 @@
+namespace AIStudio.Settings.DataModel;
+
+///
+/// Catalog of biases.
+///
+///
+/// Based on the work of Buster Benson, John Manoogian III, and Brian
+/// Rene Morrissette. The biases were clustered and organized by
+/// Buster Benson. The texts originally come from Wikipedia and
+/// were reduced to a short definition by Brian Rene Morrissette.
+/// John Manoogian III designed the original poster from Buster
+/// Benson's work, which was then supplemented with definitions
+/// by Brian Rene Morrissette.
+///
+/// All texts were checked by Thorsten Sommer against the 2024
+/// version of Wikipedia. Most texts were replaced with the latest
+/// versions, and long texts were shortened to the essentials.
+///
+/// The texts were revised and, when necessary, supplemented by
+/// Thorsten Sommer for integration into AI Studio. Sources and
+/// additional links were also researched by Thorsten Sommer.
+///
+public static class BiasCatalog
+{
+ #region WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER
+
+ private static readonly Bias MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("dd45c762-0599-4c6d-82e0-d10f7ee85bb1"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Misattribution of Memory
+ The ability to remember information correctly, but being wrong about the source of
+ that information. Includes the following three sub-effects:
+
+ - Source Confusion:
+ Source confusion is an attribute seen in different people’s accounts of the same
+ event after hearing people speak about the situation. An example of this would
+ be a witness who heard a police officer say he had a gun and then that witness
+ later says they saw the gun even though they didn’t. The source of the memory
+ is the police officer’s testimony, not actual perception.
+
+ - Cryptomnesia:
+ Individuals mistakenly believe that they are the original generators of the
+ thought.
+
+ - False Memory:
+ False memories occur when a person’s identity and interpersonal relationships
+ are strongly centered around a memory of an experience that did not actually
+ take place. False memories are often the result of leading questions in a
+ therapeutic practice termed Recovered Memory Therapy. In this practice,
+ psychiatrists often put their patients under hypnosis to recover repressed
+ memories. This can be detrimental, as the individual may recall memories that
+ never occurred.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_memory",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias LIST_LENGTH_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("688bba31-0b8e-49c5-8693-aecb37018a08"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # List Length Effect
+ The finding that recognition performance for a short list is superior to that for
+ a long list.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other_memory_biases",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MISINFORMATION_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2b69b071-6587-4ea1-a4f5-aee4e2fef43c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Misinformation Effect
+ When a person's recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate because of
+ post-event information. The misinformation effect is an example of retroactive
+ interference which occurs when information presented later interferes with the
+ ability to retain previously encoded information. Individuals have also been
+ shown to be susceptible to incorporating misleading information into their memory
+ when it is presented within a question. Essentially, the new information that a
+ person receives works backward in time to distort memory of the original event.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("dd45c762-0599-4c6d-82e0-d10f7ee85bb1"), // MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY -> False Memory
+ new Guid("4d377bac-062a-46d3-a1a5-46f3ac804a97"), // SUGGESTIBILITY
+ ],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias LEVELING_AND_SHARPENING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d1ed47f9-2415-4fa3-8ca3-151e9e4ee3ca"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Leveling and Sharpening
+ Leveling occurs when you hear or remember something, and drop details which do not fit cognitive
+ categories and/or assumptions; sharpening occurs when you hear or remember something, and emphasize
+ details which do fit cognitive categories and/or assumptions.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveling_and_sharpening",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PEAK_END_RULE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("cf71d1e1-f49e-4d8f-a6c3-37056297bf13"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Peak-End Rule
+ The peak–end rule is a psychological heuristic in which people judge an experience largely based on how
+ they felt at its peak (i.e., its most intense point) and at its end, rather than based on the total sum
+ or average of every moment of the experience. The effect occurs regardless of whether the experience is
+ pleasant or unpleasant. To the heuristic, other information aside from that of the peak and end of the
+ experience is not lost, but it is not used. This includes net pleasantness or unpleasantness and how
+ long the experience lasted. The peak–end rule is thereby a specific form of the more general extension
+ neglect and duration neglect.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak%E2%80%93end_rule",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FADING_AFFECT_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("0378a05c-b55b-4451-a7f4-b5e1d6287d83"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Fading Affect Bias
+ The fading affect bias, more commonly known as FAB, is a psychological phenomenon in which memories
+ associated with negative emotions tend to be forgotten more quickly than those associated with positive
+ emotions. FAB only refers to the feelings one has associated with the memories and not the content of
+ the memories themselves.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fading_affect_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NEGATIVITY_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Negativity Bias
+ The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when positive
+ or neutral things of equal intensity occur, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts,
+ emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological
+ state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will
+ generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but
+ negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation
+ of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk
+ considerations.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ ],
+ Links = [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PREJUDICE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("efb6606f-4629-4e5e-973f-94d5ac496638"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Prejudice
+ Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word
+ is often used to refer to a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another
+ person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex,
+ gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race,
+ ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth,
+ education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.
+
+ The word "prejudice" can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs and it may apply to
+ "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". Gordon Allport defined
+ prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on,
+ actual experience". Auestad defines prejudice as characterized by "symbolic transfer", transfer of
+ a value-laden meaning content onto a socially-formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to
+ belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.
+
+ The United Nations Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility has highlighted research considering
+ prejudice as a global security threat due to its use in scapegoating some populations and inciting others
+ to commit violent acts towards them and how this can endanger individuals, countries, and the international
+ community.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IMPLICIT_STEREOTYPES = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("30bd6403-b7f4-4d16-9494-af6a22b349d3"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Implicit Stereotypes
+ The unconscious attribution of particular qualities to a member of a certain social group. Implicit stereotypes are
+ influenced by experience, and are based on learned associations between various qualities and social categories,
+ including race or gender. Individuals' perceptions and behaviors can be affected by implicit stereotypes, even
+ without the individuals' intention or awareness.
+
+ An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual
+ to a member of some social out group. Implicit stereotypes are thought to be shaped by experience and based on learned
+ associations between particular qualities and social categories, including race and/or gender. Individuals' perceptions
+ and behaviors can be influenced by the implicit stereotypes they hold, even if they are sometimes unaware they hold such
+ stereotypes. Implicit bias is an aspect of implicit social cognition: the phenomenon that perceptions, attitudes, and
+ stereotypes can operate prior to conscious intention or endorsement. The existence of implicit bias is supported by a
+ variety of scientific articles in psychological literature. Implicit stereotype was first defined by psychologists
+ Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald in 1995.
+
+ Explicit stereotypes, by contrast, are consciously endorsed, intentional, and sometimes controllable thoughts and beliefs.
+
+ Implicit biases, however, are thought to be the product of associations learned through past experiences. Implicit
+ biases can be activated by the environment and operate prior to a person's intentional, conscious endorsement. Implicit
+ bias can persist even when an individual rejects the bias explicitly.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IMPLICIT_ASSOCIATIONS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("6f1d8a61-cb64-44fe-9a52-5ee66c22fba4"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Implicit Associations
+ A person's automatic association between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory.
+ *Controversial. This is not a bias, it is an association algorithm.*
+
+ Related: The implicit-association test
+ The implicit-association test (IAT) is an assessment intended to detect subconscious associations
+ between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory. Its best-known application is the
+ assessment of implicit stereotypes held by test subjects, such as associations between particular
+ racial categories and stereotypes about those groups. The test has been applied to a variety of
+ belief associations, such as those involving racial groups, gender, sexuality, age, and religion
+ but also the self-esteem, political views, and predictions of the test taker.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype#Activation_of_implicit_stereotypes",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SPACING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("41e06aaf-73c2-4f48-9962-312d57308468"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Spacing Effect
+ The spacing effect demonstrates that learning is more effective when study sessions are spaced out. This
+ effect shows that more information is encoded into long-term memory by spaced study sessions, also known
+ as spaced repetition or spaced presentation, than by massed presentation ("cramming").
+
+ The phenomenon was first identified by Hermann Ebbinghaus, and his detailed study of it was published in
+ the 1885 book "Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie" (Memory: A Contribution
+ to Experimental Psychology), which suggests that active recall with increasing time intervals reduces the
+ probability of forgetting information. This robust finding has been supported by studies of many explicit
+ memory tasks such as free recall, recognition, cued-recall, and frequency estimation.
+
+ Researchers have offered several possible explanations of the spacing effect, and much research has been
+ conducted that supports its impact on recall. In spite of these findings, the robustness of this phenomenon
+ and its resistance to experimental manipulation have made empirical testing of its parameters difficult.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SUGGESTIBILITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4d377bac-062a-46d3-a1a5-46f3ac804a97"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Suggestibility
+ The quality of being inclined to accept and act on the suggestions of others where false but plausible
+ information is given and one fills in the gaps in certain memories with false information when recalling
+ a scenario or moment. When the subject has been persistently told something about a past event, his or
+ her memory of the event conforms to the repeated message.
+
+ Suggestibility can be seen in people's day-to-day lives:
+
+ - Someone witnesses an argument after school. When later asked about the "huge fight" that occurred, he
+ recalls the memory, but unknowingly distorts it with exaggerated fabrications, because he now thinks
+ of the event as a "huge fight" instead of a simple argument.
+
+ - Children are told by their parents they are good singers, so from then on they believe they are talented
+ while their parents were in fact being falsely encouraging.
+
+ - A teacher could trick his AP Psychology students by saying, "Suggestibility is the distortion of memory
+ through suggestion or misinformation, right?" It is likely that the majority of the class would agree
+ with him because he is a teacher and what he said sounds correct. However, the term is really the
+ definition of the misinformation effect.
+
+ However, suggestibility can also be seen in extremes, resulting in negative consequences:
+
+ - A witness' testimony is altered because the police or attorneys make suggestions during the interview,
+ which causes their already uncertain observations to become distorted memories.
+
+ - A young girl begins suffering migraines which lead to sleep deprivation and depression. Her therapist,
+ a specialist in cases involving child abuse, repeatedly asks her whether her father had sexually abused
+ her. This suggestion causes the young girl to fabricate memories of her father molesting her, which lead
+ to her being placed in foster care and her father being tried on charges of abuse.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("2b69b071-6587-4ea1-a4f5-aee4e2fef43c"), // MISINFORMATION_EFFECT,
+ new Guid("dd45c762-0599-4c6d-82e0-d10f7ee85bb1"), // MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY -> False Memory
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias TIP_OF_THE_TONGUE_PHENOMENON = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ad341a56-ffa5-4dd1-b3c6-ef2476b89b5a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon
+ Tip of the tongue (also known as TOT, or lethologica) is the phenomenon of failing to retrieve a word or term
+ from memory, combined with partial recall and the feeling that retrieval is imminent. The phenomenon's name
+ comes from the saying, "It's on the tip of my tongue." The tip of the tongue phenomenon reveals that
+ lexical access occurs in stages.
+
+ People experiencing the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can often recall one or more features of the target word,
+ such as the first letter, its syllabic stress, and words similar in sound, meaning, or both sound and meaning.
+ Individuals report a feeling of being seized by the state, feeling something like mild anguish while
+ searching for the word, and a sense of relief when the word is found. While many aspects of the
+ tip-of-the-tongue state remain unclear, there are two major competing explanations for its occurrence:
+ the direct-access view and the inferential view. Emotion and the strength of the emotional ties to what
+ is trying to be remembered can also have an impact on the TOT phenomenon. The stronger the emotional ties,
+ the longer it takes to retrieve the item from memory.
+
+ TOT states should be distinguished from FOK (feeling of knowing) states. FOK, in contrast, is the feeling
+ that one will be able to recognize — from a list of items — an item that is currently inaccessible. There
+ are still currently opposing hypotheses in the psychological literature regarding the separability of the
+ process underlying these concepts. However, there is some evidence that TOTs and FOKs draw on different
+ parts of the brain.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_of_the_tongue",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias GOOGLE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("aca65269-40cc-4a9f-b850-c0e2eb283987"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Google Effect
+ The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found
+ readily online by using Internet search engines. According to the first study about the Google effect, people
+ are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online. However, the study also
+ claims that people's ability to learn information offline remains the same. This effect may also be seen
+ as a change to what information and what level of detail is considered to be important to remember.
+
+ In a big replication study published in Nature 2018, the Google effect was one of the experiments which
+ could not be replicated.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NEXT_IN_LINE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("c0b3d9f9-c0d9-482f-bf6f-d52dffe58205"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Next-In-Line Effect
+ The next-in-line effect is the phenomenon of people being unable to recall information concerning events
+ immediately preceding their turn to perform. The effect was first studied experimentally by Malcolm Brenner
+ in 1973. In his experiment the participants were each in turn reading a word aloud from an index card, and
+ after 25 words were asked to recall as many of all the read words as possible. The results of the experiment
+ showed that words read aloud within approximately nine seconds before the subject's own turn were recalled
+ worse than other words.
+
+ The reason for the next-in-line effect appears to be a deficit in encoding the perceived information preceding
+ a performance. That is, the information is never stored to long-term memory and thus cannot be retrieved later
+ after the performance. One finding supporting this theory is that asking the subjects beforehand to pay more
+ attention to events preceding their turn to perform can prevent the memory deficit and even result in
+ overcompensation, making people remember the events before their turn better than others.
+
+ In addition, the appearance of the next-in-line effect does not seem to be connected to the level of fear of
+ negative evaluation. Both people with lower and higher anxiety levels are subject to the memory deficit.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-in-line_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias TESTING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2fe5fbe7-3fff-4621-9111-21d8c3b8bcb2"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Testing Effect
+ The testing effect (also known as retrieval practice, active recall, practice testing, or test-enhanced learning)
+ suggests long-term memory is increased when part of the learning period is devoted to retrieving information from
+ memory. It is different from the more general practice effect, defined in the APA Dictionary of Psychology as
+ "any change or improvement that results from practice or repetition of task items or activities."
+
+ Cognitive psychologists are working with educators to look at how to take advantage of tests—not as an assessment
+ tool, but as a teaching tool since testing prior knowledge is more beneficial for learning when compared to only
+ reading or passively studying material (even more so when the test is more challenging for memory).
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ABSENT_MINDEDNESS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("f459e613-4f6a-472e-ab9a-0961f5f4a685"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Absent-Mindedness
+ In the field of psychology, absent-mindedness is a mental state wherein a person is forgetfully inattentive.
+ It is the opposite mental state of mindfulness. Absentmindedness is often caused by things such as boredom,
+ sleepiness, rumination, distraction, or preoccupation with one's own internal monologue. When experiencing
+ absent-mindedness, people exhibit signs of memory lapses and weak recollection of recent events.
+
+ Absent-mindedness can usually be a result of a variety of other conditions often diagnosed by clinicians,
+ such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression. In addition to absent-mindedness leading
+ to an array of consequences affecting daily life, it can have more severe, long-term problems.
+
+ It can have three different causes:
+ 1) a low level of attention ("blanking" or "zoning out");
+ 2) intense attention to a single object of focus (hyperfocus) that makes a person oblivious to events around him or her;
+ 3) unwarranted distraction of attention from the object of focus by irrelevant thoughts or environmental events.
+
+ Absent-mindedness is also noticed as a common characteristic of personalities with schizoid personality
+ disorder.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent-mindedness",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias LEVELS_OF_PROCESSING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a4027640-1f52-4ff1-ae13-bd14a30d5b8d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Levels of Processing Effect
+ The Levels of Processing model, created by Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes memory recall
+ of stimuli as a function of the depth of mental processing. More analysis produce more elaborate and stronger memory
+ than lower levels of processing. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing (e.g.,
+ processing based on phonemic and orthographic components) leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid
+ decay. Conversely, deep processing (e.g., semantic processing) results in a more durable memory trace. There are three
+ levels of processing in this model. (1) Structural processing, or visual, is when we remember only the physical quality
+ of the word (e.g. how the word is spelled and how letters look). (2) Phonemic processing includes remembering the word
+ by the way it sounds (e.g. the word tall rhymes with fall). (3) Lastly, we have semantic processing in which we encode
+ the meaning of the word with another word that is similar or has similar meaning. Once the word is perceived, the
+ brain allows for a deeper processing.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("4f61b9fa-146a-4b6e-b075-f0ba2ee0d9d0"), // PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_Processing_model",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SUFFIX_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("1f2b459b-26bc-4a2d-b48e-a9b06d34f924"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Suffix Effect
+ The selective impairment in recall of the final items of a spoken list when the list is followed by a
+ nominally irrelevant speech item, or suffix.
+
+ Diminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the list that the subject is not
+ required to recall. A form of serial position effect.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other_memory_biases",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SERIAL_POSITION_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("fdd1e260-125b-4d06-bab5-a6204f96d5a7"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Serial-Position Effect
+ Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last items in a series best,
+ and the middle items worst. When asked to recall a list of items in any order (free recall), people tend
+ to begin recall with the end of the list, recalling those items best (the recency effect). Among earlier
+ list items, the first few items are recalled more frequently than the middle items (the primacy effect).
+
+ One suggested reason for the primacy effect is that the initial items presented are most effectively stored
+ in long-term memory because of the greater amount of processing devoted to them. (The first list item can
+ be rehearsed by itself; the second must be rehearsed along with the first, the third along with the first
+ and second, and so on.) The primacy effect is reduced when items are presented quickly and is enhanced
+ when presented slowly (factors that reduce and enhance processing of each item and thus permanent storage).
+ Longer presentation lists have been found to reduce the primacy effect.
+
+ One theorised reason for the recency effect is that these items are still present in working memory when
+ recall is solicited. Items that benefit from neither (the middle items) are recalled most poorly. An
+ additional explanation for the recency effect is related to temporal context: if tested immediately after
+ rehearsal, the current temporal context can serve as a retrieval cue, which would predict more recent items
+ to have a higher likelihood of recall than items that were studied in a different temporal context (earlier
+ in the list). The recency effect is reduced when an interfering task is given. Intervening tasks involve
+ working memory, as the distractor activity, if exceeding 15 to 30 seconds in duration, can cancel out the
+ recency effect. Additionally, if recall comes immediately after the test, the recency effect is consistent
+ regardless of the length of the studied list, or presentation rate.
+
+ Amnesiacs with poor ability to form permanent long-term memories do not show a primacy effect, but do show
+ a recency effect if recall comes immediately after study. People with Alzheimer's disease exhibit a
+ reduced primacy effect but do not produce a recency effect in recall.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("741cafef-3f47-45dd-a082-bb243eba124a"), // RECENCY_EFFECT,
+ new Guid("78f65dab-ab6d-4c4c-81f5-250edd1e8991"), // PRIMACY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial-position_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PART_LIST_CUING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("005b650d-74be-4c10-a279-33dcd5c13f84"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Part-List Cuing
+ The re-exposure of a subset of learned material as a retrieval cue can impair recall of the remaining material.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias RECENCY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("741cafef-3f47-45dd-a082-bb243eba124a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Recency Bias
+ Recency bias is a cognitive bias that favors recent events over historic ones; a memory bias. Recency bias
+ gives "greater importance to the most recent event", such as the final lawyer's closing argument a jury hears
+ before being dismissed to deliberate.
+
+ Recency bias should not be confused with anchoring or confirmation bias. Recency bias is related to the
+ serial-position effect known as the recency effect. It is not to be confused with recency illusion, the
+ belief or impression that a word or language usage is of recent origin when in reality it is long-established.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("fdd1e260-125b-4d06-bab5-a6204f96d5a7"), // SERIAL_POSITION_EFFECT
+ new Guid("78f65dab-ab6d-4c4c-81f5-250edd1e8991"), // PRIMACY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial-position_effect#Recency_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PRIMACY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("78f65dab-ab6d-4c4c-81f5-250edd1e8991"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Primacy Effect
+ In psychology and sociology, the primacy effect (also known as the primacy bias) is a cognitive bias that results
+ in a subject recalling primary information presented better than information presented later on. For example, a
+ subject who reads a sufficiently long list of words is more likely to remember words toward the beginning than
+ words in the middle.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("fdd1e260-125b-4d06-bab5-a6204f96d5a7"), // SERIAL_POSITION_EFFECT
+ new Guid("741cafef-3f47-45dd-a082-bb243eba124a"), // RECENCY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial-position_effect#Primacy_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MEMORY_INHIBITION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("0a370e78-860b-4784-9acf-688b5e1c3148"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Memory Inhibition
+ In psychology, memory inhibition is the ability not to remember irrelevant information. The scientific concept of memory
+ inhibition should not be confused with everyday uses of the word "inhibition". Scientifically speaking, memory inhibition
+ is a type of cognitive inhibition, which is the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or
+ without intention.
+
+ Memory inhibition is a critical component of an effective memory system. While some memories are retained for a lifetime,
+ most memories are forgotten. According to evolutionary psychologists, forgetting is adaptive because it facilitates
+ selectivity of rapid, efficient recollection. For example, a person trying to remember where they parked their car
+ would not want to remember every place they have ever parked. In order to remember something, therefore, it is essential
+ not only to activate the relevant information, but also to inhibit irrelevant information.
+
+ *Controversial. This is not a bias, it is a logical information sorting algorithm.*
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("4e571eaf-7c2b-44c8-b8cb-0c8da658b82d"), // FREQUENCY_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_inhibition",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MODALITY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("eeca14c3-8710-4522-8991-81db170d7f8b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Modality Effect
+ The modality effect is a term used in experimental psychology, most often in the fields dealing with memory and learning,
+ to refer to how learner performance depends on the presentation mode of studied items. Modality can refer to a number of
+ characteristics of the presented study material. However, this term is usually used to describe the improved recall of
+ the final items of a list when that list is presented verbally in comparison with a visual representation.
+
+ Some studies use the term modality to refer to a general difference in performance based upon the mode of presentation.
+ For example, Gibbons demonstrated modality effects in an experiment by making participants count either beeping sounds
+ or visually presented dots. In his book about teaching Mathematics, Craig Barton refers to the Modality Effect, arguing
+ that students learn better when images or narrations are presented alongside verbal narration, as opposed to being
+ presented with on screen text.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modality_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ #endregion
+
+ #region TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION
+
+ private static readonly Bias AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d749ce96-32f3-4c3d-86f7-26ff4edabe4a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Availability Heuristic
+ A mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person’s mind when evaluating
+ a specific topic, concept, method or decision. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that
+ if something can be recalled, it must be important, or at least more important than alternative
+ solutions which are not as readily recalled. Subsequently, under the availability heuristic, people
+ tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased
+ toward that latest news.
+
+ The mental availability of an action's consequences is positively related to those consequences'
+ perceived magnitude. In other words, the easier it is to recall the consequences of something,
+ the greater those consequences are often perceived to be. Most notably, people often rely on the
+ content of their recall if its implications are not called into question by the difficulty they
+ have in recalling it.
+
+ After seeing news stories about child abductions, people may judge that the likelihood of this event
+ is greater. Media coverage can help fuel a person's example bias with widespread and extensive coverage
+ of unusual events, such as homicide or airline accidents, and less coverage of more routine, less
+ sensational events, such as common diseases or car accidents. For example, when asked to rate the
+ probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate "newsworthy" events as more likely
+ because they can more readily recall an example from memory. Moreover, unusual and vivid events
+ like homicides, shark attacks, or lightning are more often reported in mass media than common and
+ un-sensational causes of death like common diseases.
+
+ For example, many people think that the likelihood of dying from shark attacks is greater than that
+ of dying from being hit by falling airplane parts when more people actually die from falling airplane
+ parts. When a shark attack occurs, the deaths are widely reported in the media whereas deaths as a
+ result of being hit by falling airplane parts are rarely reported in the media.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ATTENTIONAL_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("368cc51b-a235-4fa4-ad90-446c084ffae8"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Attentional Bias
+ Attentional bias refers to how a person's perception is affected by selective factors in their attention.
+ Attentional biases may explain an individual's failure to consider alternative possibilities when occupied
+ with an existing train of thought. For example, cigarette smokers have been shown to possess an attentional
+ bias for smoking-related cues around them, due to their brain's altered reward sensitivity. Attentional bias
+ has also been associated with clinically relevant symptoms such as anxiety and depression.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSORY_TRUTH_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("cadafb8f-d1ed-4c92-9c29-2f1cb0797a66"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusory Truth Effect
+ The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect,
+ or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated
+ exposure. This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple
+ University. When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their
+ understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical, as people compare new information
+ with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new,
+ unrepeated statements, leading people to believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The
+ illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence
+ is skewed after the truth has been received.
+
+ In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively
+ hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right. Researchers
+ observed the illusory truth effect's impact even on participants who knew the correct answer to begin
+ with but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency".
+
+ The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in fields such as advertising, news media, and
+ political propaganda.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9edd2f0-8503-4eb5-a4c3-369fcb318894"), // HINDSIGHT_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MERE_EXPOSURE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("8b6cd991-fcf4-4e45-b3ac-f20987667d94"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Mere-Exposure Effect
+ The mere-exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop liking or disliking for
+ things merely because they are familiar with them. In social psychology, this effect is sometimes called the
+ familiarity principle. The effect has been demonstrated with many kinds of things, including words, Chinese
+ characters, paintings, pictures of faces, geometric figures, and sounds. In studies of interpersonal
+ attraction, the more often people see a person, the more pleasing and likeable they find that person.
+
+ The most obvious application of the mere-exposure effect is in advertising, but research on its effectiveness at
+ enhancing consumer attitudes toward particular companies and products has been mixed.
+
+ The mere-exposure effect exists in most areas of human decision-making. For example, many stock traders tend
+ to invest in securities of domestic companies merely because they are more familiar with them, even though
+ international markets offer similar or better alternatives. The mere-exposure effect also distorts the
+ results of journal-ranking surveys; academics who previously published or completed reviews for a particular
+ academic journal rate it dramatically higher than those who did not. There are mixed results on the question
+ of whether mere exposure can promote good relations between different social groups. When groups already
+ have negative attitudes to each other, further exposure can increase hostility. A statistical analysis of
+ voting patterns found that candidates' exposure has a strong effect on the number of votes they receive,
+ distinct from the popularity of their policies.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONTEXT_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ccba2bca-8739-4b05-8c88-e54424e441d4"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Context Effect
+ A context effect is an aspect of cognitive psychology that describes the influence of environmental factors
+ on one's perception of a stimulus. The impact of context effects is considered to be part of top-down
+ design. The concept is supported by the theoretical approach to perception known as constructive perception.
+ Context effects can impact our daily lives in many ways such as word recognition, learning abilities, memory,
+ and object recognition. It can have an extensive effect on marketing and consumer decisions. For example,
+ research has shown that the comfort level of the floor that shoppers are standing on while reviewing products
+ can affect their assessments of product's quality, leading to higher assessments if the floor is comfortable
+ and lower ratings if it is uncomfortable. Because of effects such as this, context effects are currently
+ studied predominantly in marketing.
+
+ Context effects can have a wide range of impacts in daily life. In reading difficult handwriting context
+ effects are used to determine what letters make up a word. This helps us analyze potentially ambiguous
+ messages and decipher them correctly. It can also affect our perception of unknown sounds based on the noise
+ in the environment. For example, we may fill in a word we cannot make out in a sentence based on the
+ other words we could understand. Context can prime our attitudes and beliefs about certain topics based
+ on current environmental factors and our previous experiences with them.
+
+ Context effects also affect memory. We are often better able to recall information in the location in which
+ we learned it or studied it. For example, while studying for a test it is better to study in the environment
+ that the test will be taken in (i.e. classroom) than in a location where the information was not learned
+ and will not need to be recalled. This phenomenon is called transfer-appropriate processing.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CUE_DEPENDENT_FORGETTING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("944bc142-895e-4c7f-ba00-bbceefc383c9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Cue-Dependent Forgetting
+ Cue-dependent forgetting, or retrieval failure, is the failure to recall information without memory cues.
+ The term either pertains to semantic cues, state-dependent cues or context-dependent cues.
+
+ Upon performing a search for files in a computer, its memory is scanned for words. Relevant files containing
+ this word or string of words are displayed. This is not how memory in the human mind works. Instead,
+ information stored in the memory is retrieved by way of association with other memories. Some memories
+ can not be recalled by simply thinking about them. Rather, one must think about something associated
+ with it.
+
+ For example, if someone tries and fails to recollect the memories they had about a vacation they went on,
+ and someone mentions the fact that they hired a classic car during this vacation, this may make them remember
+ all sorts of things from that trip, such as what they ate there, where they went and what books they read.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue-dependent_forgetting",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias STATE_DEPENDENT_MEMORY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("bf83101d-47af-4d81-8306-935d4ab59fd7"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # State-Dependent Memory
+ State-dependent memory or state-dependent learning is the phenomenon where people remember more information
+ if their physical or mental state is the same at time of encoding and time of recall. State-dependent memory
+ is heavily researched in regards to its employment both in regards to synthetic states of consciousness
+ (such as under the effects of psychoactive drugs) as well as organic states of consciousness such as mood.
+ While state-dependent memory may seem rather similar to context-dependent memory, context-dependent memory
+ involves an individual's external environment and conditions (such as the room used for study and to take
+ the test) while state-dependent memory applies to the individual's internal conditions (such as use of
+ substances or mood).
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("6b049d68-9104-4579-a7a4-a744c11bd65f"), // CONTEXT_DEPENDENT_MEMORY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONTEXT_DEPENDENT_MEMORY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("6b049d68-9104-4579-a7a4-a744c11bd65f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Context-Dependent Memory
+ In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of specific episodes or information when the
+ context present at encoding and retrieval are the same. In a simpler manner, "when events are represented
+ in memory, contextual information is stored along with memory targets; the context can therefore cue memories
+ containing that contextual information". One particularly common example of context-dependence at work occurs
+ when an individual has lost an item (e.g. lost car keys) in an unknown location. Typically, people try to
+ systematically "retrace their steps" to determine all of the possible places where the item might be located.
+ Based on the role that context plays in determining recall, it is not at all surprising that individuals often
+ quite easily discover the lost item upon returning to the correct context. This concept is heavily related to
+ the encoding specificity principle.
+
+ This example best describes the concept of context-dependent forgetting. However, the research literature on
+ context-dependent memory describes a number of different types of contextual information that may affect
+ recall such as environmental context-dependent memory, state-dependent learning, cognitive context-dependent
+ memory and mood-congruent memory. Research has also shown that context-dependence may play an important role
+ in numerous situations, such as memory for studied material, or events that have occurred following the
+ consumption of alcohol or other drugs.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("bf83101d-47af-4d81-8306-935d4ab59fd7"), // STATE_DEPENDENT_MEMORY
+ new Guid("ccba2bca-8739-4b05-8c88-e54424e441d4"), // CONTEXT_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-dependent_memory",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FREQUENCY_ILLUSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4e571eaf-7c2b-44c8-b8cb-0c8da658b82d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Frequency Illusion
+ The frequency illusion (also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon) is a cognitive bias in which a
+ person notices a specific concept, word, or product more frequently after recently becoming aware of it.
+
+ The name "Baader–Meinhof phenomenon" was coined in 1994 by Terry Mullen in a letter to the St. Paul
+ Pioneer Press. The letter describes how, after mentioning the name of the German terrorist group
+ Baader–Meinhof once, he kept noticing it. This led to other readers sharing their own experiences of
+ the phenomenon, leading it to gain recognition. It was not until 2005, when Stanford linguistics
+ professor Arnold Zwicky wrote about this effect on his blog, that the name "frequency illusion"
+ was coined.
+
+ The main cause behind frequency illusion, and other related illusions and biases, seems to be
+ selective attention. Selective attention refers to the process of selecting and focusing on
+ selective objects while ignoring distractions. This means that people have the
+ unconscious cognitive ability to filter for what they are focusing on.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ new Guid("0a370e78-860b-4784-9acf-688b5e1c3148"), // MEMORY_INHIBITION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HOT_COLD_EMPATHY_GAP = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("e4e091cf-fed3-4c09-9c21-509db0b2729b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hot-Cold Empathy Gap
+ A hot-cold empathy gap is a cognitive bias in which people underestimate the influences of visceral
+ drives on their own attitudes, preferences, and behaviors. It is a type of empathy gap. The most
+ important aspect of this idea is that human understanding is "state-dependent". For example, when
+ one is angry, it is difficult to understand what it is like for one to be calm, and vice versa;
+ when one is blindly in love with someone, it is difficult to understand what it is like for one
+ not to be, (or to imagine the possibility of not being blindly in love in the future). Importantly,
+ an inability to minimize one's gap in empathy can lead to negative outcomes in medical settings
+ (e.g., when a doctor needs to accurately diagnose the physical pain of a patient).
+
+ Hot-cold empathy gaps can be analyzed according to their direction:
+
+ - Hot-to-cold: People under the influence of visceral factors (hot state) do not fully grasp how
+ much their behavior and preferences are being driven by their current state; they think instead
+ that these short-term goals reflect their general and long-term preferences.
+
+ - Cold-to-hot: People in a cold state have difficulty picturing themselves in hot states, minimizing
+ the motivational strength of visceral impulses. This leads to unpreparedness when visceral forces
+ inevitably arise.
+
+ They can also be classified in regards to their relation with time (past or future) and whether they
+ occur intra- or inter-personally:
+
+ - intrapersonal prospective: the inability to effectively predict their own future behavior when in
+ a different state. See also projection bias.
+
+ - intrapersonal retrospective: when people recall or try to understand behaviors that happened in a
+ different state.
+
+ - interpersonal: the attempt to evaluate behaviors or preferences of another person who is in a
+ state different from one's own.
+
+ Visceral factors
+ Visceral factors are an array of influences which include hunger, thirst, love, sexual arousal,
+ drug cravings for the drugs one is addicted to, physical pain, and desire for revenge. These
+ drives have a disproportionate effect on decision making and behavior: the mind, when affected
+ (i.e., in a hot state), tends to ignore all other goals in an effort to placate these influences.
+ These states can lead a person to feel "out of control" and act impulsively.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("61ca5b76-66d0-4ce2-b260-7fd42696000a"), // PROJECTION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-cold_empathy_gap",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OMISSION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Omission Bias
+ Omission bias is the phenomenon in which people prefer omission (inaction) over commission (action)
+ and people tend to judge harm as a result of commission more negatively than harm as a result of
+ omission. It can occur due to a number of processes, including psychological inertia, the perception
+ of transaction costs, and the perception that commissions are more causal than omissions. In social
+ political terms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes how basic human rights are to
+ be assessed in article 2, as "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
+ religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
+ criteria that are often subject to one or another form of omission bias. It is controversial as to
+ whether omission bias is a cognitive bias or is often rational. The bias is often showcased through
+ the trolley problem and has also been described as an explanation for the endowment effect and
+ status quo bias.
+
+ A real-world example is when parents decide not to vaccinate their children because of the potential
+ chance of death—even when the probability the vaccination will cause death is much less likely than
+ death from the disease prevented.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), // ENDOWMENT_EFFECT
+ new Guid("b9e05a25-ac09-407d-8aee-f54a04decf0b"), // STATUS_QUO_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BASE_RATE_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("1de0de03-a2a7-4248-b004-4152d84a3c86"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Base Rate Fallacy
+ The base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect or base rate bias, is a type of fallacy in
+ which people tend to ignore the base rate (e.g., general prevalence) in favor of the individuating
+ information (i.e., information pertaining only to a specific case). For example, if someone hears
+ that a friend is very shy and quiet, they might think the friend is more likely to be a librarian
+ than a salesperson, even though there are far more salespeople than librarians overall - hence
+ making it more likely that their friend is actually a salesperson. Base rate neglect is a specific
+ form of the more general extension neglect.
+
+ Another example: Students were asked to estimate the GPAs of hypothetical students. When given
+ relevant statistics about GPA distribution, students tended to ignore them if given descriptive
+ information about the particular student even if the new descriptive information was obviously
+ of little or no relevance to GPA.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("8533edf9-3117-48c5-8f78-efbd996911f0"), // CONSERVATISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BIZARRENESS_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7f2d9bd2-96e5-4100-85f8-a13b37e91a9f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Bizarreness Effect
+ Bizarreness effect is the tendency of bizarre material to be better remembered than common material.
+ The scientific evidence for its existence is contested. Some research suggests it does exist, some
+ suggests it doesn't exist and some suggests it leads to worse remembering.
+
+ McDaniel and Einstein argues that bizarreness intrinsically does not enhance memory in their paper
+ from 1986. They claim that bizarre information becomes distinctive. It is the distinctiveness that
+ according to them makes encoding easier.[3] Which makes common sense from an instinctual perspective
+ as the human brain will disregard ingesting information it already is familiar with and will be
+ particularly attuned to taking in new information as an adaptation technique.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarreness_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HUMOUR_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4c5ef2d4-5ebb-48ea-b9ee-9b2751ae6914"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Humour Effect
+ The tendency to better remember humorous items than non-humorous ones.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias VON_RESTORFF_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b922da6f-765e-42e9-b675-f8109c010f2f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Von Restorff Effect
+ The Von Restorff effect, also known as the "isolation effect", predicts that when multiple
+ homogeneous stimuli are presented, the stimulus that differs from the rest is more likely
+ to be remembered. The theory was coined by German psychiatrist and pediatrician Hedwig
+ von Restorff (1906–1962), who, in her 1933 study, found that when participants were presented
+ with a list of categorically similar items with one distinctive, isolated item on the list,
+ memory for the item was improved.
+
+ For example, if a person examines a shopping list with one item highlighted in bright green,
+ he or she will be more likely to remember the highlighted item than any of the others.
+ Additionally, in the following list of words – desk, chair, bed, table, chipmunk, dresser,
+ stool, couch – "chipmunk" will be remembered the most as it stands out against the other
+ words in its meaning.
+
+ There have been many studies that demonstrate and confirm the von Restorff effect in children
+ and young adults. Another study found that college-aged students performed better when trying
+ to remember an outstanding item in a list during an immediate memory-task whereas elderly
+ individuals did not remember it well, suggesting a difference in processing strategies
+ between the age groups.
+
+ In yet another study, although a significant von Restorff effect was produced amongst both
+ age groups when manipulating font color, it was found to be smaller in older adults than
+ younger adults. This too indicates that older people display lesser benefits for distinctive
+ information compared to younger people.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Restorff_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PICTURE_SUPERIORITY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2b8f679b-480c-4588-96b5-951767f870e3"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Picture Superiority Effect
+ The picture superiority effect refers to the phenomenon in which pictures and images are more
+ likely to be remembered than are words. This effect has been demonstrated in numerous experiments
+ using different methods. It is based on the notion that "human memory is extremely sensitive to
+ the symbolic modality of presentation of event information". Explanations for the picture
+ superiority effect are not concrete and are still being debated, however an evolutionary
+ explanation is that sight has a long history stretching back millions of years and was
+ crucial to survival in the past, whereas reading is a relatively recent invention, and
+ specific cognitive processes, such as decoding symbols and linking them to meaning.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("eeca14c3-8710-4522-8991-81db170d7f8b"), // MODALITY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_superiority_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SELF_REFERENCE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("302b0004-1f18-4ed0-8fc1-6396fc7e6dbe"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Self-Reference Effect
+ The self-reference effect is a tendency for people to encode information differently depending on
+ whether they are implicated in the information. When people are asked to remember information when
+ it is related in some way to themselves, the recall rate can be improved.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ANCHORING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("fe94ab26-70bb-4682-b7ee-e2828e4b02bd"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Anchoring Effect
+ The anchoring effect is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's judgments or decisions
+ are influenced by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant. Both numeric
+ and non-numeric anchoring have been reported in research. In numeric anchoring, once the value
+ of the anchor is set, subsequent arguments, estimates, etc. made by an individual may change
+ from what they would have otherwise been without the anchor. For example, an individual may
+ be more likely to purchase a car if it is placed alongside a more expensive model (the anchor).
+ Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps
+ even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market
+ value of the car. Another example may be when estimating the orbit of Mars, one might start
+ with the Earth's orbit (365 days) and then adjust upward until they reach a value that seems
+ reasonable (usually less than 687 days, the correct answer).
+
+ The original description of the anchoring effect came from psychophysics. When judging stimuli
+ along a continuum, it was noticed that the first and last stimuli were used to compare the other
+ stimuli (this is also referred to as "end anchoring"). This was applied to attitudes by Sherif
+ et al. in their 1958 article "Assimilation and effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments".
+
+ Anchoring in negotiation
+ In the negotiation process anchoring serves to determine an accepted starting point for the
+ subsequent negotiations. As soon as one side states their first price offer, the (subjective)
+ anchor is set. The counterbid (counter-anchor) is the second-anchor.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONSERVATISM_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("8533edf9-3117-48c5-8f78-efbd996911f0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Conservatism Bias
+ In cognitive psychology and decision science, conservatism or conservatism bias is a bias which refers
+ to the tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence. This bias
+ describes human belief revision in which people over-weigh the prior distribution (base rate) and
+ under-weigh new sample evidence when compared to Bayesian belief-revision. In other words, people
+ update their prior beliefs as new evidence becomes available, but they do so more slowly than
+ they would if they used Bayes' theorem.
+
+ In finance, evidence has been found that investors under-react to corporate events, consistent
+ with conservatism. This includes announcements of earnings, changes in dividends, and stock splits.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("1de0de03-a2a7-4248-b004-4152d84a3c86"), // BASE_RATE_FALLACY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revision)",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONTRAST_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("bc69c14d-0f2d-47ce-b20f-836fae36beb6"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Contrast Effect
+ A contrast effect is the enhancement or diminishment, relative to normal, of perception, cognition
+ or related performance as a result of successive (immediately previous) or simultaneous exposure
+ to a stimulus of lesser or greater value in the same dimension. (Here, normal perception, cognition
+ or performance is that which would be obtained in the absence of the comparison stimulus—i.e.,
+ one based on all previous experience.)
+
+ Perception example: A neutral gray target will appear lighter or darker than it does in isolation
+ when immediately preceded by, or simultaneously compared to, respectively, a dark gray or light
+ gray target.
+
+ Cognition example: A person will appear more or less attractive than that person does in isolation
+ when immediately preceded by, or simultaneously compared to, respectively, a less or more attractive
+ person.
+
+ Performance example: A laboratory rat will work faster, or slower, during a stimulus predicting a
+ given amount of reward when that stimulus and reward are immediately preceded by, or alternated with,
+ respectively, different stimuli associated with either a lesser or greater amount of reward.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DISTINCTION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("0c65fbf8-c74a-49a1-8a16-0e789bce9524"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Distinction Bias
+ The tendency to view two options as more distinctive when evaluating them simultaneously than when
+ evaluating them separately.
+
+ For example, when televisions are displayed next to each other on the sales floor, the difference
+ in quality between two very similar, high-quality televisions may appear great. A consumer may pay
+ a much higher price for the higher-quality television, even though the difference in quality is
+ imperceptible when the televisions are viewed in isolation. Because the consumer will likely be
+ watching only one television at a time, the lower-cost television would have provided a similar
+ experience at a lower cost.
+
+ To avoid this bias, avoid comparing two jobs, or houses, directly. Instead, consider each job, or
+ house, individually and make an overall assessment of each one on its own, and then compare
+ assessments, which allows them to make a choice that accurately predicts future experience.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("593f2a10-46a6-471e-9ab3-86df740df6f2"), // LESS_IS_BETTER_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FOCUSING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("490f26a1-3b9b-4048-9488-8ba93b8bd8af"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Focusing Effect
+ A cognitive bias that occurs when people place too much importance on only one aspect of an
+ evaluation, causing an error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
+
+ Example: It is sunnier in California therefore people must be more happy there. Or a job
+ that pays more money must be better.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FRAMING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a1950fc4-20e0-4d36-8e68-540b491b2d23"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Framing Effect
+ The framing effect is a cognitive bias in which people decide between options based on whether the options
+ are presented with positive or negative connotations. Individuals have a tendency to make risk-avoidant
+ or choices when options are positively framed, while selecting more loss-avoidant options when presented with
+ a negative frame. In studies of the bias, options are presented in terms of the probability of either
+ losses or gains. While differently expressed, the options described are in effect identical. Gain and
+ loss are defined in the scenario as descriptions of outcomes, for example, lives lost or saved, patients
+ treated or not treated, monetary gains or losses.
+
+ Prospect theory posits that a loss is more significant than the equivalent gain, that a sure gain (certainty
+ effect and pseudocertainty effect) is favored over a probabilistic gain, and that a probabilistic loss is
+ preferred to a definite loss. One of the dangers of framing effects is that people are often provided with
+ options within the context of only one of the two frames.
+
+ The concept helps to develop an understanding of frame analysis within social movements, and also in the
+ formation of political opinion where spin plays a large role in political opinion polls that are framed to
+ encourage a response beneficial to the organization that has commissioned the poll. It has been suggested
+ that the use of the technique is discrediting political polls themselves. The effect is reduced, or even
+ eliminated, if ample credible information is provided to people.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MONEY_ILLUSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("33136203-8d52-42e5-ad32-561b3c288676"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Money Illusion
+ In economics, money illusion, or price illusion, is a cognitive bias where money is thought of in nominal,
+ rather than real terms. In other words, the face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its
+ purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in time. Viewing purchasing power as measured by the
+ nominal value is false, as modern fiat currencies have no intrinsic value and their real value depends
+ purely on the price level. The term was coined by Irving Fisher in *Stabilizing the Dollar*. It was
+ popularized by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century, and Irving Fisher wrote an important
+ book on the subject, *The Money Illusion*, in 1928.
+
+ The existence of money illusion is disputed by monetary economists who contend that people act rationally
+ (i.e. think in real prices) with regard to their wealth. Eldar Shafir, Peter A. Diamond, and Amos
+ Tversky (1997) have provided empirical evidence for the existence of the effect and it has been shown to
+ affect behaviour in a variety of experimental and real-world situations.
+
+ Shafir et al. also state that money illusion influences economic behaviour in three main ways:
+
+ - Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change
+ even where inflation has caused real prices to fall or costs to rise.
+
+ - Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.
+
+ - Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.
+
+ Money illusion can also influence people's perceptions of outcomes. Experiments have shown that people
+ generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as unfair,
+ but see a 2% rise in nominal income where there is 4% inflation as fair, despite them being almost rational
+ equivalents. This result is consistent with the 'Myopic Loss Aversion theory'. Furthermore, the money illusion
+ means nominal changes in price can influence demand even if real prices have remained constant.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_illusion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias WEBER_FECHNER_LAW = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("528077d5-fdad-47df-89d4-6a32287c321b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Weber–Fechner Law
+ The Weber–Fechner laws are two related scientific laws in the field of psychophysics, known as Weber's law and
+ Fechner's law. Both relate to human perception, more specifically the relation between the actual change in a
+ physical stimulus and the perceived change. This includes stimuli to all senses: vision, hearing, taste, touch,
+ and smell.
+
+ Ernst Heinrich Weber states that "the minimum increase of stimulus which will produce a perceptible increase
+ of sensation is proportional to the pre-existent stimulus," while Gustav Fechner's law is an inference from
+ Weber's law (with additional assumptions) which states that the intensity of our sensation increases as the
+ logarithm of an increase in energy rather than as rapidly as the increase.
+
+ Psychological studies show that it becomes increasingly difficult to discriminate between two numbers as the
+ difference between them decreases. This is called the distance effect. This is important in areas of magnitude
+ estimation, such as dealing with large scales and estimating distances. It may also play a role in explaining
+ why consumers neglect to shop around to save a small percentage on a large purchase, but will shop around to
+ save a large percentage on a small purchase which represents a much smaller absolute dollar amount.
+
+ Preliminary research has found that pleasant emotions adhere to Weber’s Law, with accuracy in judging their
+ intensity decreasing as pleasantness increases. However, this pattern wasn't observed for unpleasant emotions,
+ suggesting a survival-related need for accurately discerning high-intensity negative emotions.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONFIRMATION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Confirmation Bias
+ Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias, or congeniality bias) is the tendency to search for,
+ interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.
+ People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information,
+ or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for
+ desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
+
+ In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which
+ displays to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views. Some
+ have argued that confirmation bias is the reason why society can never escape from filter bubbles, because
+ individuals are psychologically hardwired to seek information that agrees with their preexisting values and
+ beliefs. Others have further argued that the mixture of the two is degrading democracy—claiming that this
+ "algorithmic editing" removes diverse viewpoints and information—and that unless filter bubble algorithms
+ are removed, voters will be unable to make fully informed political decisions.
+
+ Many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or
+ ignoring unfavorable data. Several studies have shown that scientists rate studies that report findings
+ consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with
+ their previous beliefs. Further, confirmation biases can sustain scientific theories or research programs
+ in the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence. The discipline of parapsychology is often cited
+ as an example.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("4e571eaf-7c2b-44c8-b8cb-0c8da658b82d"), // FREQUENCY_ILLUSION
+ new Guid("d749ce96-32f3-4c3d-86f7-26ff4edabe4a"), // AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC
+ new Guid("0378a05c-b55b-4451-a7f4-b5e1d6287d83"), // FADING_AFFECT_BIAS
+ new Guid("fee14af4-34af-4cd0-a72c-9ad489516b60"), // CONGRUENCE_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONGRUENCE_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("fee14af4-34af-4cd0-a72c-9ad489516b60"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Congruence Bias
+ Congruence bias is the tendency of people to over-rely on testing their initial hypothesis (the most congruent one)
+ while neglecting to test alternative hypotheses. That is, people rarely try experiments that could disprove their
+ initial belief, but rather try to repeat their initial results. It is a special case of the confirmation bias.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CHOICE_SUPPORTIVE_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("51337702-9dc4-442a-8584-78f56e9ec186"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Choice-supportive bias
+ Choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes
+ to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options. It is part of cognitive science, and is a
+ distinct cognitive bias that occurs once a decision is made. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of
+ option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying or ascribing new negative
+ faults to option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice
+ or de-emphasize those of option B.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("dd45c762-0599-4c6d-82e0-d10f7ee85bb1"), // MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("91fded4f-de89-405e-8627-dba49cf5deaa"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Selective Perception
+ Selective perception is the tendency not to notice and more quickly forget stimuli that cause emotional discomfort
+ and contradict prior beliefs. For example, a teacher may have a favorite student because they are biased by in-group
+ favoritism. The teacher ignores the student's poor attainment. Conversely, they might not notice the progress of
+ their least favorite student. It can also occur when consuming mass media, allowing people to see facts and
+ opinions they like while ignoring those that do not fit with particular opinions, values, beliefs, or frame of
+ reference. Psychologists believe this process occurs automatically.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("75e51ef5-f992-41c2-8778-0002c617db9a"), // OSTRICH_EFFECT
+ new Guid("1dfd3e9e-e44e-44cf-b8a0-95dea7a0e780"), // NORMALCY_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OBSERVER_EXPECTANCY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("c06c9a63-15aa-4601-aff4-ddfe6dd9727a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Observer-Expectancy Effect
+ The observer-expectancy effect[a] is a form of reactivity in which a researcher's cognitive bias causes them to
+ subconsciously influence the participants of an experiment. Confirmation bias can lead to the experimenter
+ interpreting results incorrectly because of the tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis,
+ and overlook information that argues against it. It is a significant threat to a study's internal validity, and
+ is therefore typically controlled using a double-blind experimental design.
+
+ The classic example of experimenter bias is that of "Clever Hans", an Orlov Trotter horse claimed by his owner
+ von Osten to be able to do arithmetic and other tasks. As a result of the large public interest in Clever Hans,
+ philosopher and psychologist Carl Stumpf, along with his assistant Oskar Pfungst, investigated these claims.
+ Ruling out simple fraud, Pfungst determined that the horse could answer correctly even when von Osten did not
+ ask the questions. However, the horse was unable to answer correctly when either it could not see the questioner,
+ or if the questioner themselves was unaware of the correct answer: When von Osten knew the answers to the questions,
+ Hans answered correctly 89% of the time. However, when von Osten did not know the answers, Hans guessed only 6% of
+ questions correctly. Pfungst then proceeded to examine the behaviour of the questioner in detail, and showed that
+ as the horse's taps approached the right answer, the questioner's posture and facial expression changed in ways
+ that were consistent with an increase in tension, which was released when the horse made the final, correct tap.
+ This provided a cue that the horse had learned to use as a reinforced cue to stop tapping.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OSTRICH_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("75e51ef5-f992-41c2-8778-0002c617db9a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Ostrich Effect
+ The ostrich effect, also known as the ostrich problem, was originally coined by Galai & Sade (2003). The name
+ comes from the common (but false) legend that ostriches bury their heads in the sand to avoid danger. This
+ effect is a cognitive bias where people tend to “bury their head in the sand” and avoid potentially negative
+ but useful information, such as feedback on progress, to avoid psychological discomfort.
+
+ There is neuroscientific evidence of the ostrich effect. Sharot et al. (2012) investigated the differences in
+ positive and negative information when updating existing beliefs. Consistent with the ostrich effect,
+ participants presented with negative information were more likely to avoid updating their beliefs.
+
+ An everyday example of the ostrich effect in a financial context is people avoiding checking their bank account
+ balance after spending a lot of money. There are known negative implications of the ostrich effect in healthcare.
+ For example, people with diabetes avoid monitoring their blood sugar levels.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("91fded4f-de89-405e-8627-dba49cf5deaa"), // SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION
+ new Guid("1dfd3e9e-e44e-44cf-b8a0-95dea7a0e780"), // NORMALCY_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SUBJECTIVE_VALIDATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("85612b34-0a78-454e-a204-7840bc11521c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Subjective Validation
+ Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which people will
+ consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance
+ to them. People whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a
+ coincidence) to be related because their personal beliefs demand that they be related. Closely related to the
+ Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main
+ reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.
+
+ Example: Belief in a cold reading. Cold reading is a set of techniques used by mentalists, psychics, fortune-tellers,
+ and mediums. Without prior knowledge, a practiced cold-reader can quickly obtain a great deal of information by
+ analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
+ ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc. during a line of questioning.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("05e4a15d-5c3e-42e9-88aa-bb40350d17e2"), // BARNUM_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BARNUM_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2cb8514a-c4a2-4cf6-aed7-72d7870ace84"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Barnum Effect
+ The Barnum effect, also called the Forer effect or, less commonly, the Barnum–Forer effect, is a common psychological
+ phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are
+ tailored specifically to them, yet which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
+ This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some paranormal beliefs and practices,
+ such as astrology, fortune telling, aura reading, and some types of personality tests.
+
+ Example: Belief in a cold reading. Cold reading is a set of techniques used by mentalists, psychics, fortune-tellers,
+ and mediums. Without prior knowledge, a practiced cold-reader can quickly obtain a great deal of information by
+ analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
+ ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc. during a line of questioning.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("85612b34-0a78-454e-a204-7840bc11521c"), // SUBJECTIVE_VALIDATION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONTINUED_INFLUENCE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7169c5e4-ca95-4568-b816-a36e2049993b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Continued Influence Effect
+ The tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still
+ influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("2b69b071-6587-4ea1-a4f5-aee4e2fef43c"), // MISINFORMATION_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other_memory_biases",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SEMMELWEIS_REFLEX = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("48e2374a-9919-43eb-baa6-fc8c4f837d31"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Semmelweis Reflex
+ The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence
+ or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ new Guid("7256f3f1-6650-4c45-bb85-36d81c9edd1a"), // AUTHORITY_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BIAS_BLIND_SPOT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d8f01e8b-23c3-47da-979e-f18a3d4e104d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Bias Blind Spot
+ The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgment of others, while failing
+ to see the impact of biases on one's own judgment. The term was created by Emily Pronin, a social psychologist from
+ Princeton University's Department of Psychology, with colleagues Daniel Lin and Lee Ross. The bias blind spot is named
+ after the visual blind spot. Most people appear to exhibit the bias blind spot. In a sample of more than 600 residents
+ of the United States, more than 85% believed they were less biased than the average American. Only one participant
+ believed that they were more biased than the average American. People do vary with regard to the extent to which
+ they exhibit the bias blind spot. This phenomenon has been successfully replicated and it appears that in general,
+ stronger personal free will beliefs are associated with bias blind spot. It appears to be a stable individual
+ difference that is measurable.
+
+ The bias blind spot appears to be a true blind spot in that it is unrelated to actual decision making ability.
+ Performance on indices of decision making competence are not related to individual differences in bias blind spot.
+ In other words, most people appear to believe that they are less biased than others, regardless of their actual
+ decision making ability.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Introspection Illusion
+ The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins
+ of their mental states, while treating others' introspections as unreliable. The illusion has been examined in
+ psychological experiments, and suggested as a basis for biases in how people compare themselves to others. These
+ experiments have been interpreted as suggesting that, rather than offering direct access to the processes underlying
+ mental states, introspection is a process of construction and inference, much as people indirectly infer others' mental
+ states from their behaviour.
+
+ When people mistake unreliable introspection for genuine self-knowledge, the result can be an illusion of superiority
+ over other people, for example when each person thinks they are less biased and less conformist than the rest of the
+ group. Even when experimental subjects are provided with reports of other subjects' introspections, in as detailed a
+ form as possible, they still rate those other introspections as unreliable while treating their own as reliable.
+ Although the hypothesis of an introspection illusion informs some psychological research, the existing evidence is
+ arguably inadequate to decide how reliable introspection is in normal circumstances.
+
+ The phrase "introspection illusion" was coined by Emily Pronin. Pronin describes the illusion as having four components:
+
+ - People give a strong weighting to introspective evidence when assessing themselves.
+
+ - They do not give such a strong weight when assessing others.
+
+ - People disregard their own behaviour when assessing themselves (but not others).
+
+ - Own introspections are more highly weighted than others. It is not just that people lack access to each other's
+ introspections: they regard only their own as reliable.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusory Superiority
+ In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein people overestimate their own qualities and
+ abilities compared to others. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that
+ are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of
+ desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective
+ measure is known as the overconfidence effect.
+
+ The term "illusory superiority" was first used by the researchers Van Yperen and Buunk, in 1991. The phenomenon is
+ also known as the above-average effect, the superiority bias, the leniency error, the sense of relative superiority,
+ the primus inter pares effect, and the Lake Wobegon effect, named after the fictional town where all the children are
+ above average. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a form of illusory superiority shown by people on a task where their
+ level of skill is low.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
+ new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT
+ new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Overconfidence Effect
+ The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in their
+ judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence
+ is relatively high.
+
+ The most common way in which overconfidence has been studied is by asking people how confident they are of
+ specific beliefs they hold or answers they provide. The data show that confidence systematically exceeds
+ accuracy, implying people are more sure that they are correct than they deserve to be.
+
+ The following is an incomplete list of events related or triggered by bias/overconfidence and a failing
+ (safety) culture:
+
+ - Chernobyl disaster
+ - Sinking of the Titanic
+ - Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
+ - Space Shuttle Columbia disaster
+ - Deepwater Horizon oil spill
+ - Titan submersible implosion
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NAÏVE_CYNICISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5ae6f7ec-3be2-47ad-ad75-0ed114f97fe0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Naïve Cynicism
+ Naïve cynicism is a philosophy of mind, cognitive bias and form of psychological egoism that occurs when
+ people naïvely expect more egocentric bias in others than actually is the case.
+
+ The term was formally proposed by Justin Kruger and Thomas Gilovich and has been studied across a wide range
+ of contexts including: negotiations, group-membership, marriage, economics, government policy and more.
+
+ The theory of naïve cynicism can be described as:
+
+ - I am not biased.
+ - You are biased if you disagree with me.
+ - Your intentions/actions reflect your underlying egocentric biases.
+
+ As with naïve cynicism, the theory of naïve realism hinges on the acceptance of the following three beliefs:
+
+ - I am not biased.
+ - Reasonable people are not biased.
+ - All others are biased.
+
+ Naïve cynicism can be thought of as the counter to naïve realism, which is the belief that an individual
+ perceives the social world objectively while others perceive it subjectively.
+
+ It is important to discern that naïve cynicism is related to the notion that others have an egocentric bias
+ that motivates them to do things for their own self-interest rather than for altruistic reasons.
+
+ Both of these theories, however, relate to the extent that adults credit or discredit the beliefs or statements
+ of others.
+
+ Example: Cold War
+ The American reaction to a Russian SALT treaty during the Cold War is one well-known example of naïve cynicism
+ in history. Political leaders negotiating on behalf of the United States discredited the offer simply because
+ it was proposed by the Russian side.
+
+ Former U.S. congressman Floyd Spence indicates the use of naïve cynicism in this quote:
+ "I have had a philosophy for some time in regard to SALT, and it goes like this: the Russians will not accept
+ a SALT treaty that is not in their best interest, and it seems to me that if it is their best interests, it
+ can‘t be in our best interest."
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_cynicism",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NAÏVE_REALISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("f0ad095e-8e9c-4bfb-855e-11fb5dd58cea"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Naïve Realism
+ In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively,
+ and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
+
+ Naïve realism provides a theoretical basis for several other cognitive biases, which are systematic errors when it
+ comes to thinking and making decisions. These include the false consensus effect, actor–observer bias, bias blind
+ spot, and fundamental attribution error, among others.
+
+ Lee Ross and fellow psychologist Andrew Ward have outlined three interrelated assumptions, or "tenets", that make up
+ naïve realism. They argue that these assumptions are supported by a long line of thinking in social psychology,
+ along with several empirical studies. According to their model, people:
+
+ - Believe that they see the world objectively and without bias.
+
+ - Expect that others will come to the same conclusions, so long as they are exposed to the same information and
+ interpret it in a rational manner.
+
+ - Assume that others who do not share the same views must be ignorant, irrational, or biased.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("bc0dc6d3-5115-4def-91ae-a38aebed185e"), // FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT
+ new Guid("d8f01e8b-23c3-47da-979e-f18a3d4e104d"), // BIAS_BLIND_SPOT
+ new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"), // ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ #endregion
+
+ #region NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONFABULATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2bbea096-a2a6-413f-85ce-32b5ae18669f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Confabulation
+ In psychology, confabulation is a memory error consisting of the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted
+ memories about oneself or the world. People who confabulate present with incorrect memories ranging from subtle inaccuracies
+ to surreal fabrications, and may include confusion or distortion in the temporal framing (timing, sequence or duration) of
+ memories. In general, they are very confident about their recollections, even when challenged with contradictory evidence.
+ Confabulation occurs when individuals mistakenly recall false information, without intending to deceive.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CLUSTERING_ILLUSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2c2ed1a8-aa4d-486d-a9b4-5a16ae9230c9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Clustering Illusion
+ The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small
+ samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount
+ of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or pseudorandom data.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("7fce783e-2120-4aad-9805-2c2a2b937b7d"), // ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL
+ new Guid("465418ae-54b8-42ef-a29e-6ee9e9ffa769"), // INSENSITIVITY_TO_SAMPLE_SIZE
+ new Guid("61cd7e34-23be-43ef-ab97-8118cef7d23f"), // MONTE_CARLO_FALLACY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias INSENSITIVITY_TO_SAMPLE_SIZE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("465418ae-54b8-42ef-a29e-6ee9e9ffa769"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Insensitivity to Sample Size
+ Insensitivity to sample size is a cognitive bias that occurs when people judge the probability of obtaining a sample statistic
+ without respect to the sample size. For example, in one study, subjects assigned the same probability to the likelihood of
+ obtaining a mean height of above six feet (183 cm) in samples of 10, 100, and 1,000 men. In other words, variation is more
+ likely in smaller samples, but people may not expect this.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("2c2ed1a8-aa4d-486d-a9b4-5a16ae9230c9"), // CLUSTERING_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitivity_to_sample_size",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NEGLECT_OF_PROBABILITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("44c6efd7-53f1-4d22-82fe-25e941390089"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Neglect of Probability
+ The neglect of probability, a type of cognitive bias, is the tendency to disregard probability when making a decision under
+ uncertainty and is one simple way in which people regularly violate the normative rules for decision making. Small risks are
+ typically either neglected entirely or hugely overrated. The continuum between the extremes is ignored. The term probability
+ neglect was coined by Cass Sunstein.
+
+ There are many related ways in which people violate the normative rules of decision making with regard to probability including
+ the hindsight bias, the neglect of prior base rates effect, and the gambler's fallacy. However, this bias is different, in that,
+ rather than incorrectly using probability, the actor disregards it.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9edd2f0-8503-4eb5-a4c3-369fcb318894"), // HINDSIGHT_BIAS
+ new Guid("1de0de03-a2a7-4248-b004-4152d84a3c86"), // BASE_RATE_FALLACY
+ new Guid("61cd7e34-23be-43ef-ab97-8118cef7d23f"), // MONTE_CARLO_FALLACY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ANECDOTAL_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a448fe93-b176-4b5f-9498-f57f3f970a67"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Anecdotal Fallacy
+ Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy
+ ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close
+ peers which may not be typical.
+
+ A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the "Post hoc ergo
+ propter hoc" fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must
+ be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates
+ a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence",
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_VALIDITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("8f68af8b-7b27-4697-bcf6-8bd4a5392a22"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusion of Validity
+ A cognitive bias in which a person overestimates his or her ability to interpret and predict accurately the outcome
+ when analyzing a set of data, in particular when the data analyzed show a very consistent pattern — that is, when the
+ data "tell" a coherent story. This effect persists even when the person is aware of all the factors that limit the
+ accuracy of his or her predictions, that is when the data and/or methods used to judge them lead to highly fallible
+ predictions.
+
+ Example: Subjects reported higher confidence in a prediction of the final grade point average of a student after
+ seeing a first-year record of consistent B’s than a first-year record of an even number of A’s and C’s. Consistent
+ patterns may be observed when input variables are highly redundant or correlated, which may increase subjective
+ confidence. However, a number of highly correlated inputs should not increase confidence much more than only one
+ of the inputs; instead higher confidence should be merited when a number of highly independent inputs show a
+ consistent pattern.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ecfa5b28-3900-45ba-89c7-f8d995dfe406"), // WYSIATI
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_validity",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias WYSIATI = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ecfa5b28-3900-45ba-89c7-f8d995dfe406"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is)
+ It solves a difficult problem by replacing it with a simpler problem that you know about. One problem does not solve
+ the other. The acronym WYSIATI stands for "What you see is all there is." It was coined by Nobel laureate Daniel
+ Kahneman in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." WYSIATI refers to the fact that we make decisions based on the
+ information we currently have. For example, when we meet an unknown person, we decide within seconds whether we
+ like the person or not.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MASKED_MAN_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5ddf8011-0ba2-4341-9e18-46178f8d4fbe"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Masked-Man Fallacy
+ In philosophical logic, the masked-man fallacy (also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic fallacy) is
+ committed when one makes an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument. Leibniz's law states that if A and B
+ are the same object, then A and B are indiscernible (that is, they have all the same properties). By modus tollens,
+ this means that if one object has a certain property, while another object does not have the same property, the two
+ objects cannot be identical. The fallacy is "epistemic" because it posits an immediate identity between a subject's
+ knowledge of an object with the object itself, failing to recognize that Leibniz's Law is not capable of accounting
+ for intensional contexts.
+
+ The name of the fallacy comes from the example:
+
+ - Premise 1: I know who Claus is.
+ - Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is.
+ - Conclusion: Therefore, Claus is not the masked man.
+
+ The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Claus is the masked man and the speaker does not know that.
+ Thus the argument is a fallacious one.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masked-man_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias RECENCY_ILLUSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d0a79f6e-7786-4dd7-8a3f-62f167252171"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Recency Illusion
+ The recency illusion is the belief or impression, on the part of someone who has only recently become aware of a
+ long-established phenomenon, that the phenomenon itself must be of recent origin. The term was coined by Arnold
+ Zwicky, a linguist at Stanford University who is primarily interested in examples involving words, meanings,
+ phrases, and grammatical constructions. However, use of the term is not restricted to linguistic phenomena:
+ Zwicky has defined it simply as, "the belief that things you have noticed only recently are in fact recent".
+ According to Zwicky, the illusion is caused by selective attention.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("91fded4f-de89-405e-8627-dba49cf5deaa"), // SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_illusion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias GAMBLERS_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("61cd7e34-23be-43ef-ab97-8118cef7d23f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Gambler's Fallacy
+ he gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief
+ that, if an event (whose occurrences are independent and identically distributed) has occurred less frequently than
+ expected, it is more likely to happen again in the future (or vice versa). The fallacy is commonly associated with
+ gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six
+ because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
+
+ In a study aimed at discovering if the negative autocorrelation that exists with the gambler's fallacy existed in
+ the decision made by U.S. asylum judges, results showed that after two successive asylum grants, a judge would be
+ 5.5% less likely to approve a third grant.
+
+ In the decision making of loan officers, it can be argued that monetary incentives are a key factor in biased
+ decision making, rendering it harder to examine the gambler's fallacy effect. However, research shows that loan
+ officers who are not incentivised by monetary gain are 8% less likely to approve a loan if they approved one
+ for the previous client.
+
+ Several video games feature the use of loot boxes, a collection of in-game items awarded on opening with random
+ contents set by rarity metrics, as a monetization scheme. Since around 2018, loot boxes have come under scrutiny
+ from governments and advocates on the basis they are akin to gambling, particularly for games aimed at youth.
+ Some games use a special "pity-timer" mechanism, that if the player has opened several loot boxes in a row
+ without obtaining a high-rarity item, subsequent loot boxes will improve the odds of a higher-rate item drop.
+ This is considered to feed into the gambler's fallacy since it reinforces the idea that a player will eventually
+ obtain a high-rarity item (a win) after only receiving common items from a string of previous loot boxes.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("44c6efd7-53f1-4d22-82fe-25e941390089"), // NEGLECT_OF_PROBABILITY
+ new Guid("2c2ed1a8-aa4d-486d-a9b4-5a16ae9230c9"), // CLUSTERING_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HOT_HAND_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5fd14849-7041-42ee-976e-9a2b10522d29"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hot Hand Fallacy
+ The "hot hand" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand fallacy") is a phenomenon, previously
+ considered a cognitive social bias, that a person who experiences a successful outcome has a greater
+ chance of success in further attempts. The concept is often applied to sports and skill-based tasks
+ in general and originates from basketball, where a shooter is more likely to score if their previous
+ attempts were successful; i.e., while having the "hot hand.” While previous success at a task can indeed
+ change the psychological attitude and subsequent success rate of a player, researchers for many years
+ did not find evidence for a "hot hand" in practice, dismissing it as fallacious. However, later research
+ questioned whether the belief is indeed a fallacy. Some recent studies using modern statistical
+ analysis have observed evidence for the "hot hand" in some sporting activities; however, other recent
+ studies have not observed evidence of the "hot hand". Moreover, evidence suggests that only a small
+ subset of players may show a "hot hand" and, among those who do, the magnitude (i.e., effect size) of the
+ "hot hand" tends to be small.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSORY_CORRELATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("829d3178-8ebc-417c-b587-2ead31525327"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusory Correlation
+ In psychology, illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables
+ (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A false association
+ may be formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's
+ attention. This phenomenon is one way stereotypes form and endure. Hamilton & Rose (1980) found that
+ stereotypes can lead people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together, and then to overestimate
+ the frequency with which these correlations actually occur. These stereotypes can be learned and perpetuated
+ without any actual contact occurring between the holder of the stereotype and the group it is about.
+
+ Example: A woman has her purse stolen by a person of a specific demographic. Henceforth, she keeps her
+ close purse each time she sees a similar person.
+
+ Example: A man holds the belief that people in urban environments tend to be rude. Therefore, when he
+ meets someone who is rude he assumes that the person lives in a city, rather than a rural area.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PAREIDOLIA = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("274cc868-df03-4fae-9dca-ccb07a66aeaf"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Pareidolia
+ Pareidolia is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus,
+ usually visual, so that one detects an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none. Pareidolia is
+ a type of apophenia.
+
+ Common examples include perceived images of animals, faces, or objects in cloud formations; seeing faces
+ in inanimate objects; or lunar pareidolia like the Man in the Moon or the Moon rabbit. The concept of
+ pareidolia may extend to include hidden messages in recorded music played in reverse or at higher- or
+ lower-than-normal speeds, and hearing voices (mainly indistinct) or music in random noise, such as that
+ produced by air conditioners or by fans.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("6ab69dc8-6fcc-42c3-b190-90125a15b49f"), // APHOPHENIA
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias APOPHENIA = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("6ab69dc8-6fcc-42c3-b190-90125a15b49f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Apophenia
+ Apophenia is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. The term
+ (German: Apophänie from the Greek verb ἀποφαίνειν (apophaínein)) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus
+ Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia. He defined it as "unmotivated
+ seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness". He described the
+ early stages of delusional thought as self-referential over-interpretations of actual sensory
+ perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations. Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to
+ unreasonably seek definite patterns in random information, such as can occur in gambling.
+
+ Pareidolia is a type of apophenia involving the perception of images or sounds in random stimuli.
+ Gamblers may imagine that they see patterns in the numbers that appear in lotteries, card games, or
+ roulette wheels, where no such patterns exist. A common example of this is the gambler's fallacy.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("274cc868-df03-4fae-9dca-ccb07a66aeaf"), // PAREIDOLIA
+ new Guid("61cd7e34-23be-43ef-ab97-8118cef7d23f"), // MONTE_CARLO_FALLACY
+ new Guid("2c2ed1a8-aa4d-486d-a9b4-5a16ae9230c9"), // CLUSTERING_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ANTHROPOMORPHISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("70470097-52a8-4ea7-a85c-ed88ad1ed972"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Anthropomorphism
+ Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.
+ It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology. Personification is the related
+ attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions, and
+ natural forces, such as seasons and weather. Both have ancient roots as storytelling and artistic
+ devices, and most cultures have traditional fables with anthropomorphized animals as characters.
+ People have also routinely attributed human emotions and behavioral traits to wild as well as
+ domesticated animals.
+
+ Anthropomorphism can be used to assist learning. Specifically, anthropomorphized words and
+ describing scientific concepts with intentionality can improve later recall of these concepts.
+
+ In people with depression, social anxiety, or other mental illnesses, emotional support animals
+ are a useful component of treatment partially because anthropomorphism of these animals can satisfy
+ the patients' need for social connection.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias GROUP_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("577e79e5-0a53-4c4c-a2ea-d039870bfbb9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Group Attribution Error
+ The group attribution error refers to people's tendency to believe either
+
+ (a) the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of
+ the group as a whole, or
+
+ (b) a group's decision outcome must reflect the preferences of individual
+ group members, even when external information is available suggesting otherwise.
+
+ The group attribution error shares an attribution bias analogous to the fundamental
+ attribution error. Rather than focusing on individual's behavior, it relies on group
+ outcomes and attitudes as its main basis for conclusions.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"), // ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ATTRIBUTION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Attribution Bias
+ In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the
+ systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors.
+ It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to
+ perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.
+
+ Attributions are the judgments and assumptions people make about why others behave a certain way. However,
+ these judgments may not always reflect the true situation. Instead of being completely objective, people
+ often make errors in perception that lead to skewed interpretations of social situations. Attribution
+ biases are present in everyday life. For example, when a driver cuts someone off, the person who has been
+ cut off is often more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver's inherent personality traits (e.g.,
+ "That driver is rude and incompetent") rather than situational circumstances (e.g., "That driver may have
+ been late to work and was not paying attention").
+
+ Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error,
+ fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases
+ describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"), // ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS
+ new Guid("e85d8b16-5a36-4b63-af07-72c5188f089f"), // HOSTILE_ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HOSTILE_ATTRIBUTION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("e85d8b16-5a36-4b63-af07-72c5188f089f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hostile Attribution Bias
+ Hostile attribution bias, or hostile attribution of intent, is the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as
+ having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign. For example, a person with high levels
+ of hostile attribution bias might see two people laughing and immediately interpret this behavior as two people
+ laughing about them, even though the behavior was ambiguous and may have been benign.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"), // ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Ultimate Attribution Error
+ The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which describes how attributions of outgroup
+ behavior are more negative than ingroup behavior. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup
+ behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality,
+ and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias
+ reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive
+ stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely
+ a result of their personality.
+
+ Four categories have been identified that describe the negative attribution of positive outgroup behaviour.
+ First, that the outgroup member is an exception to a general rule; second, that the member was lucky or had specific
+ advantages; third, that the member was highly motivated; and lastly that the behaviour as attributable to situational causes.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"), // ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
+ new Guid("efb6606f-4629-4e5e-973f-94d5ac496638"), // PREJUDICE
+ new Guid("46c2a0b2-6b1b-4e02-86ea-3cff2bf292d0"), // STEREOTYPE
+ new Guid("b1cc861b-f445-450b-9bdf-e9d222abdb4e"), // IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM
+ new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"), // ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b1cc861b-f445-450b-9bdf-e9d222abdb4e"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # In-Group Favoritism
+ In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or
+ in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members.
+ This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.
+
+ This effect has been researched by many psychologists and linked to many theories related to group
+ conflict and prejudice. The phenomenon is primarily viewed from a social psychology standpoint.
+ Studies have shown that in-group favoritism arises as a result of the formation of cultural groups.
+ These cultural groups can be divided based on seemingly trivial observable traits, but with time,
+ populations grow to associate certain traits with certain behavior, increasing covariation. This
+ then incentivizes in-group bias.
+
+ Two prominent theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism are realistic conflict
+ theory and social identity theory. Realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup competition,
+ and sometimes intergroup conflict, arises when two groups have opposing claims to scarce resources.
+ In contrast, social identity theory posits a psychological drive for positively distinct social
+ identities as the general root cause of in-group favoring behavior.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("6f5f4cbf-e6f3-439b-ad78-81b2dd266315"), // OUT_GROUP_HOMOGENEITY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias STEREOTYPING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("46c2a0b2-6b1b-4e02-86ea-3cff2bf292d0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Stereotyping
+ In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people.
+ It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of
+ expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences,
+ appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information.
+ A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ESSENTIALISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("179535d0-5da5-4c0f-b9b3-fb6644496254"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Essentialism
+ The view that all objects have an essential substance that make the thing what it is, and without which
+ it would be not that kind of thing.
+
+ Essentialism has emerged as an important concept in psychology, particularly developmental psychology.
+ In 1991, Kathryn Kremer and Susan Gelman studied the extent to which children from four–seven years old
+ demonstrate essentialism. Children believed that underlying essences predicted observable behaviours.
+ Children were able to describe living objects' behaviour as self-perpetuated and non-living objects'
+ behavior as a result of an adult influencing the object. Understanding the underlying causal mechanism
+ for behaviour suggests essentialist thinking. Younger children were unable to identify causal
+ mechanisms of behaviour whereas older children were able to. This suggests that essentialism is rooted
+ in cognitive development. It can be argued that there is a shift in the way that children represent
+ entities, from not understanding the causal mechanism of the underlying essence to showing sufficient
+ understanding.
+
+ *Controversial. This is a philosophical viewpoint not a cognitive bias.*
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FUNCTIONAL_FIXEDNESS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4346bdf9-4448-413f-92cd-4d146bf4789d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Functional Fixedness
+ Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to use an object only in the way it is traditionally
+ used. The concept of functional fixedness originated in Gestalt psychology, a movement in psychology that emphasizes
+ holistic processing. Karl Duncker defined functional fixedness as being a mental block against using an object in a
+ new way that is required to solve a problem. This "block" limits the ability of an individual to use components given
+ to them to complete a task, as they cannot move past the original purpose of those components. For example, if someone
+ needs a paperweight, but they only have a hammer, they may not see how the hammer can be used as a paperweight.
+ Functional fixedness is this inability to see a hammer's use as anything other than for pounding nails; the person
+ couldn't think to use the hammer in a way other than in its conventional function.
+
+ When tested, 5-year-old children show no signs of functional fixedness. It has been argued that this is because at
+ age 5, any goal to be achieved with an object is equivalent to any other goal. However, by age 7, children have
+ acquired the tendency to treat the originally intended purpose of an object as special.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MORAL_CREDENTIAL_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("e36f82b7-43dd-4073-99d9-c33073007185"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Moral Credential Effect
+ Self-licensing (also moral self-licensing, moral licensing, or licensing effect) is a term used in social
+ psychology and marketing to describe the subconscious phenomenon whereby increased confidence and security
+ in one's self-image or self-concept tends to make that individual worry less about the consequences of
+ subsequent immoral behavior and, therefore, more likely to make immoral choices and act immorally.
+ In simple terms, self-licensing occurs when people allow themselves to indulge after doing something positive
+ first; for example, drinking a diet soda with a greasy hamburger and fries can lead one to subconsciously
+ discount the negative attributes of the meal's high caloric and cholesterol content.
+
+ A large subset of this effect, the moral credential effect, is a bias that occurs when a person's track
+ record as a good egalitarian establishes in them an unconscious ethical certification, endorsement, or
+ license that increases the likelihood of less egalitarian decisions later. This effect occurs even when
+ the audience or moral peer group is unaware of the affected person's previously established moral credential.
+ For example, individuals who had the opportunity to recruit a woman or Black person in one setting were more
+ likely to say later, in a different setting, that a job would be better suited for a man or a white person.
+ Similar effects also appear to occur when a person observes another person from a group they identify with
+ making an egalitarian decision.
+
+ Self-licensing can have negative societal consequences since it has a permissive effect on behaviors such
+ as racial prejudice and discrimination, selfishness, poor dietary and health habits, and excessive
+ energy consumption.
+
+ But recent scholarship has failed to replicate seminal studies of the licensing effect, and meta-analysis
+ found it to be exaggerated by publication bias. Furthermore, where licensing typically assumes that a
+ good deed is the cause that makes subsequent transgressions more likely, an alternative (or additional)
+ account is that people are faced with a temptation to do something morally dubious, and use a prior good
+ deed as an excuse or reason why it is allowed for them to indulge.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias JUST_WORLD_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("50c5f877-e656-494d-bc15-57c45a190cf9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Just-World Fallacy
+ The just-world fallacy, or just-world hypothesis, is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what
+ they deserve" – that actions will necessarily have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor.
+ For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually
+ be punished fall under this fallacy. In other words, the just-world fallacy is the tendency to attribute
+ consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance
+ or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the
+ existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, order, or the anglophone colloquial
+ use of "karma". It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to
+ rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers "deserve" it. This is called victim blaming.
+
+ This fallacy popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed
+ punishment for wrongdoing, such as: "you got what was coming to you", "what goes around comes around",
+ "chickens come home to roost", "everything happens for a reason", and "you reap what you sow". This
+ hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work
+ on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s. Research has continued since then, examining the
+ predictive capacity of the fallacy in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding
+ the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ARGUMENT_FROM_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("704695f1-9753-478b-9e9f-878e3a01e041"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Argument from Fallacy
+ Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains
+ a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the
+ fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy.
+
+ Example 1:
+ - Alice: All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. Therefore, Ginger is a cat.
+ - Bob: You have just fallaciously affirmed the consequent. You are incorrect. Therefore, Ginger is not a cat.
+
+ Example 2:
+ - Alice: I speak English. Therefore, I am English.
+ - Bob: Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. By assuming that speaking English and being
+ English always go together, you have just committed the package-deal fallacy. You are incorrect. Therefore,
+ you are not English.
+
+ Both of Bob's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy. Ginger may or may not be a cat, and Alice may or may not
+ be English. The fact that Alice's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, proof that her conclusion is false.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias AUTHORITY_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7256f3f1-6650-4c45-bb85-36d81c9edd1a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Authority Bias
+ Authority bias is the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure (unrelated to
+ its content) and be more influenced by that opinion. An individual is more influenced by the opinion of this
+ authority figure, believing their views to be more credible, and hence place greater emphasis on the authority
+ figure's viewpoint and are more likely to obey them. This concept is considered one of the social cognitive
+ biases or collective cognitive biases.
+
+ Cultural differences in the strength of authority bias have been identified, in which the differences in edits
+ made to Wikipedia articles by administrators and regular users were compared for accuracy. In Western Europe,
+ the bias has a negligible effect. In Eastern Europe, the bias is larger and the administrator's edits are
+ perceived as more likely to be true (despite the edits being inaccurate), indicating a cultural difference
+ in the extent to which authority bias is experienced.
+
+ Business: The authority bias is demonstrated in the case of the highest-paid persons' opinion (HIPPO) impact,
+ which describes how employees and other stakeholders in the solution environment tend to go with the opinions
+ and impressions of the highly paid people in an organization.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ new Guid("b1d46b0f-fa51-4e82-b0aa-71ba2c6ad1f1"), // BANDWAGON_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias AUTOMATION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("c9e10d5b-6a32-4766-b937-aa03e276f018"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Automation Bias
+ Automation bias is the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to
+ ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct. Automation bias stems from
+ the social psychology literature that found a bias in human-human interaction that showed that people assign more
+ positive evaluations to decisions made by humans than to a neutral object. The same type of positivity bias
+ has been found for human-automation interaction, where the automated decisions are rated more positively
+ than neutral. This has become a growing problem for decision making as intensive care units, nuclear power
+ plants, and aircraft cockpits have increasingly integrated computerized system monitors and decision aids
+ to mostly factor out possible human error. Errors of automation bias tend to occur when decision-making
+ is dependent on computers or other automated aids and the human is in an observatory role but able to
+ make decisions. Examples of automation bias range from urgent matters like flying a plane on automatic
+ pilot to such mundane matters as the use of spell-checking programs.
+
+ An operator's trust in the system can also lead to different interactions with the system, including system
+ use, misuse, disuse, and abuse. Automation use and disuse can also influence stages of information processing:
+ information acquisition, information analysis, decision making and action selection, and action implementation.
+
+ For example, information acquisition, the first step in information processing, is the process by which a user
+ registers input via the senses. An automated engine gauge might assist the user with information acquisition
+ through simple interface features—such as highlighting changes in the engine's performance—thereby directing
+ the user's selective attention. When faced with issues originating from an aircraft, pilots may tend to
+ overtrust an aircraft's engine gauges, losing sight of other possible malfunctions not related to the engine.
+ This attitude is a form of automation complacency and misuse. If, however, the pilot devotes time to interpret
+ the engine gauge, and manipulate the aircraft accordingly, only to discover that the flight turbulence has not
+ changed, the pilot may be inclined to ignore future error recommendations conveyed by an engine gauge—a form
+ of automation complacency leading to disuse.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BANDWAGON_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b1d46b0f-fa51-4e82-b0aa-71ba2c6ad1f1"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Bandwagon Effect
+ The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon where people adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes
+ simply because others are doing so. More specifically, it is a cognitive bias by which public opinion or
+ behaviours can alter due to particular actions and beliefs rallying amongst the public. It is a psychological
+ phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases with respect to the proportion
+ of others who have already done so. As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon"
+ regardless of the underlying evidence.
+
+ Following others' actions or beliefs can occur because of conformism or deriving information from others. Much of
+ the influence of the bandwagon effect comes from the desire to 'fit in' with peers; by making similar selections
+ as other people, this is seen as a way to gain access to a particular social group. An example of this is fashion
+ trends wherein the increasing popularity of a certain garment or style encourages more acceptance. When individuals
+ make rational choices based on the information they receive from others, economists have proposed that information
+ cascades can quickly form in which people ignore their personal information signals and follow the behaviour of
+ others. Cascades explain why behaviour is fragile as people understand that their behaviour is based on a very
+ limited amount of information. As a result, fads form easily but are also easily dislodged. The phenomenon is
+ observed in various fields, such as economics, political science, medicine, and psychology. In social psychology,
+ people's tendency to align their beliefs and behaviors with a group is known as 'herd mentality' or 'groupthink'.
+ The reverse bandwagon effect (also known as the snob effect in certain contexts) is a cognitive bias that causes
+ people to avoid doing something, because they believe that other people are doing it.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("7256f3f1-6650-4c45-bb85-36d81c9edd1a"), // AUTHORITY_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PLACEBO_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("8d76fae9-cd8e-46b5-9cbc-c8fffa6613a8"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Placebo Effect
+ The psychological phenomenon in which the recipient perceives an improvement in condition due to personal
+ expectations rather than treatment itself.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OUT_GROUP_HOMOGENEITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("6f5f4cbf-e6f3-439b-ad78-81b2dd266315"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Out-Group Homogeneity
+ The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members,
+ e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around
+ those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated,
+ supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity
+ bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring
+ to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.
+
+ The outgroup homogeneity effect is sometimes referred to as "outgroup homogeneity bias". Such nomenclature hints at a broader
+ meta-theoretical debate that is present in the field of social psychology. This debate centres on the validity of heightened perceptions
+ of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity, where some researchers view the homogeneity effect as an example of cognitive bias and error, while
+ other researchers view the effect as an example of normal and often adaptive social perception. The out-group homogeneity effect has
+ been found using a wide variety of different social groups, from political and racial groups to age and gender groups.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b1cc861b-f445-450b-9bdf-e9d222abdb4e"), // IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CROSS_RACE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d36f046d-fe5c-4f4a-8d7f-14427b834581"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Cross-Race Effect
+ The cross-race effect (sometimes called cross-race bias, other-race bias, own-race bias or other-race effect) is the tendency to more easily
+ recognize faces that belong to one's own racial group, or racial groups that one has been in contact with. In social psychology, the
+ cross-race effect is described as the "ingroup advantage," whereas in other fields, the effect can be seen as a specific form of the
+ "ingroup advantage" since it is only applied in interracial or inter-ethnic situations. The cross-race effect is thought to contribute
+ to difficulties in cross-race identification, as well as implicit racial bias.
+
+ A number of theories as to why the cross-race effect exists have been conceived, including social cognition and perceptual expertise.
+ However, no model has been able to fully account for the full body of evidence.
+
+ Cross-race identification bias
+ This effect refers to the decreased ability of people of one race to recognize faces and facial expressions of people of another race. This
+ differs from the cross-race bias because this effect is found mostly during eyewitness identification as well as identification of a suspect
+ in a line-up. In these situations, many people feel as if races other than their own look alike, and they have difficulty distinguishing
+ between members of different ethnic groups. Cross-race identification bias is also known as the misinformation effect since people are
+ considered to be misinformed about other races and have difficulty identifying them. A study was made which examined 271 real court
+ cases. In photographic line-ups, 231 witnesses participated in cross-race versus same-race identification. In cross-race lineups,
+ only 45% were correctly identified versus 60% for same-race identifications. In a study dealing with eyewitness testimony,
+ investigators examined forty participants in a racially diverse area of the US. Participants watched a video of a property crime
+ being committed, then in the next 24 hours came to pick the suspect out of a photo line-up. Most of the participants in the study
+ either misidentified the suspect or stated the suspect was not in the line-up at all. Correct identification of the suspect
+ occurred more often when the eyewitness and the suspect were of the same race. In another study, 86 convenience store
+ clerks were asked to identify three customers: one white, one black, and one Mexican, all of whom had purchased in the store
+ earlier that day. The clerks tended to identify customers belonging to their own race accurately, but were more likely to make
+ errors when attempting to identify other races members. Meanwhile, another study found that "alcohol intoxication reduces
+ the own-race bias in face recognition," albeit by impairing accurate perception and leaving in place or increasing random error
+ rather than by improving facial recognition of members of other groups.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CHEERLEADER_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("79f705e9-c461-4ad7-8b5e-83358aa345f7"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Cheerleader Effect
+ The cognitive bias which causes people to think individuals are more attractive when they are in a group. This effect occurs
+ with male-only, female-only and mixed gender groups; and both small and large groups. The effect occurs to the same extent
+ with groups of four and 16 people. Participants in studies looked more at the attractive people than the unattractive people
+ in the group. The effect does not occur because group photos give the impression that individuals have more social or emotional
+ intelligence. This was shown to be the case by a study which used individual photos grouped together in a single image, rather
+ than photos taken of people in a group. The study generated the same effect.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerleader_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias POSITIVITY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Positivity Effect
+ The positivity effect is the ability to constructively analyze a situation where the desired results are not achieved, but still
+ obtain positive feedback that assists one's future progression. Empirical research findings suggest that the positivity effect
+ can be influenced by internal positive speech, where engaging in constructive self-dialogue can significantly improve one’s
+ ability to perceive and react to challenging situations more optimistically.
+
+ The findings of a study show that the optimism bias in future-oriented thinking fulfils a self-improvement purpose while also
+ suggesting this bias probably reflects a common underpinning motivational process across various future-thinking domains,
+ either episodic or semantic.
+
+ ## In attribution
+ The positivity effect as an attribution phenomenon relates to the habits and characteristics of people when evaluating
+ the causes of their behaviors. To positively attribute is to be open to attributing a person’s inherent disposition as
+ the cause of their positive behaviors, and the situations surrounding them as the potential cause of their negative
+ behaviors.
+
+ ## In perception
+ Two studies by Emilio Ferrara have shown that, on online social networks like Twitter and Instagram, users prefer to share
+ positive news, and are emotionally affected by positive news more than twice as much as they are by negative news.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"), // ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivity_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NOT_INVENTED_HERE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("72fd9f08-b3c2-40b7-8d56-a2e84d776041"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Not Invented Here
+ Not invented here (NIH) is the tendency to avoid using or buying products, research, standards, or knowledge from external origins.
+ It is usually adopted by social, corporate, or institutional cultures. Research illustrates a strong bias against ideas from the
+ outside.
+
+ The reasons for not wanting to use the work of others are varied, but can include a desire to support a local economy instead of
+ paying royalties to a foreign license-holder, fear of patent infringement, lack of understanding of the foreign work, an
+ unwillingness to acknowledge or value the work of others, jealousy, belief perseverance, or forming part of a wider turf war.
+ As a social phenomenon, this tendency can manifest itself as an unwillingness to adopt an idea or product because it originates
+ from another culture, a form of tribalism and/or an inadequate effort in choosing the right approach for the business.
+
+ The term is typically used in a pejorative sense. The opposite predisposition is sometimes called "proudly found elsewhere" (PFE)
+ or "invented elsewhere".
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias REACTIVE_DEVALUATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("46493445-4a8b-4488-901c-85da417c80a3"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Reactive Devaluation
+ Reactive devaluation is a cognitive bias that occurs when a proposal is devalued if it appears to originate from an antagonist. The
+ bias was proposed by Lee Ross and Constance Stillinger (1988). Reactive devaluation could be caused by loss aversion or attitude
+ polarization, or naïve realism.
+
+ In an initial experiment, Stillinger and co-authors asked pedestrians in the US whether they would support a drastic bilateral
+ nuclear arms reduction program. If they were told the proposal came from President Ronald Reagan, 90 percent said it would be
+ favorable or even-handed to the United States; if they were told the proposal came from a group of unspecified policy analysts,
+ 80 percent thought it was favorable or even; but, if respondents were told it came from Mikhail Gorbachev only 44 percent thought
+ it was favorable or neutral to the United States.
+
+ In another experiment, a contemporaneous controversy at Stanford University led to the university divesting of South African
+ assets because of the apartheid regime. Students at Stanford were asked to evaluate the University's divestment plan before
+ it was announced publicly and after such. Proposals including the actual eventual proposal were valued more highly when they
+ were hypothetical.
+
+ In another study, experimenters showed Israeli participants a peace proposal which had been actually proposed by Israel. If
+ participants were told the proposal came from a Palestinian source, they rated it lower than if they were told (correctly)
+ the identical proposal came from the Israeli government. If participants identified as "hawkish" were told it came from a
+ "dovish" Israeli government, they believed it was relatively bad for their people and good for the other side, but not if
+ participants identified as "doves".
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ new Guid("f0ad095e-8e9c-4bfb-855e-11fb5dd58cea"), // NAÏVE_REALISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_devaluation",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias WELL_TRAVELLED_ROAD_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("9ee2b5b5-463c-4bca-af85-087683f89ab3"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Well-Travelled Road Effect
+ The well travelled road effect is a cognitive bias in which travellers will estimate the time taken to traverse routes differently
+ depending on their familiarity with the route. Frequently travelled routes are assessed as taking a shorter time than unfamiliar
+ routes. This effect creates errors when estimating the most efficient route to an unfamiliar destination, when one candidate
+ route includes a familiar route, whilst the other candidate route includes no familiar routes. The effect is most salient when
+ subjects are driving, but is still detectable for pedestrians and users of public transport. The effect has been observed for
+ centuries but was first studied scientifically in the 1980s and 1990s following from earlier "heuristics and biases" work
+ undertaken by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_travelled_road_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MENTAL_ACCOUNTING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("9444923f-90c9-4269-a4dc-291513fa6d12"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Mental Accounting
+ Mental accounting (or psychological accounting) is a model of consumer behaviour developed by Richard Thaler that attempts to describe the
+ process whereby people code, categorize and evaluate economic outcomes. Mental accounting incorporates the economic concepts of prospect
+ theory and transactional utility theory to evaluate how people create distinctions between their financial resources in the form of mental
+ accounts, which in turn impacts the buyer decision process and reaction to economic outcomes. People are presumed to make mental accounts
+ as a self control strategy to manage and keep track of their spending and resources. People budget money into mental accounts for savings
+ (e.g., saving for a home) or expense categories (e.g., gas money, clothing, utilities). People also are assumed to make mental accounts to
+ facilitate savings for larger purposes (e.g., a home or college tuition). Mental accounting can result in people demonstrating greater
+ loss aversion for certain mental accounts, resulting in cognitive bias that incentivizes systematic departures from consumer rationality.
+ Through an increased understanding of mental accounting differences in decision making based on different resources, and different
+ reactions based on similar outcomes can be greater understood.
+
+ As Thaler puts it, “All organizations, from General Motors down to single person households, have explicit and/or implicit accounting
+ systems. The accounting system often influences decisions in unexpected ways”.
+
+ A more proximal psychological mechanism through which mental accounting influences spending is through its influence on the pain of
+ paying that is associated with spending money from a mental account. Pain of paying is a negative affective response associated
+ with a financial loss. Prototypical examples are the unpleasant feeling that one experiences when watching the fare increase on a
+ taximeter or at the gas pump. When considering an expense, consumers appear to compare the cost of the expense to the size of an
+ account that it would deplete (e.g., numerator vs. denominator). A $30 t-shirt, for example, would be a subjectively larger
+ expense when drawn from $50 in one's wallet than $500 in one's checking account. The larger the fraction, the more pain of
+ paying the purchase appears to generate and the less likely consumers are to then exchange money for the good. Other evidence
+ of the relation between pain of paying and spending include the lower debt held by consumers who report experiencing a higher
+ pain of paying for the same goods and services than consumers who report experiencing less pain of paying.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_accounting",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias APPEAL_TO_POSSIBILITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("73ca0caa-25e5-4edb-91d4-f375a773f82c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Appeal to Probability
+ An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility, also known as possibiliter ergo probabiliter, "possibly, therefore
+ probably") is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it is possibly the case. The fact that an
+ event is possible does not imply that the event is probable, nor that the event was realized.
+
+ A fallacious appeal to possibility:
+
+ - If it can happen (premise).
+ - It will happen. (invalid conclusion)
+
+ - Something can go wrong (premise).
+ - Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
+
+ - If I do not bring my umbrella (premise)
+ - It will rain. (invalid conclusion).
+
+ Murphy's law is a (typically deliberate, tongue-in-cheek) invocation of the fallacy.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias NORMALCY_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("1dfd3e9e-e44e-44cf-b8a0-95dea7a0e780"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Normalcy Bias
+ Normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a cognitive bias which leads people to disbelieve or minimize threat warnings. Consequently,
+ individuals underestimate the likelihood of a disaster, when it might affect them, and its potential adverse effects. The normalcy
+ bias causes many people to prepare inadequately for natural disasters, market crashes, and calamities caused by human error. About
+ 80% of people reportedly display normalcy bias during a disaster.
+
+ The normalcy bias can manifest in response to warnings about disasters and actual catastrophes. Such events can range in scale
+ from incidents such as traffic collisions to global catastrophic risk. The event may involve social constructionism phenomena
+ such as loss of money in market crashes, or direct threats to continuity of life: as in natural disasters like a tsunami or
+ violence in war.
+
+ Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect, and by first responders, the negative panic. The
+ opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias, in which small deviations from normality are dealt
+ with as signals of an impending catastrophe.
+
+ ## Prevention
+ The negative effects of normalcy bias can be combated through the four stages of disaster response:
+
+ - preparation, including publicly acknowledging the possibility of disaster and forming contingency plans.
+
+ - warning, including issuing clear, unambiguous, and frequent warnings and helping the public to understand and believe them.
+
+ - impact, the stage at which the contingency plans take effect and emergency services, rescue teams, and disaster relief
+ teams work in tandem.
+
+ - aftermath, reestablishing equilibrium after the fact, by providing both supplies and aid to those in need.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("75e51ef5-f992-41c2-8778-0002c617db9a"), // OSTRICH_EFFECT
+ new Guid("91fded4f-de89-405e-8627-dba49cf5deaa"), // SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ZERO_SUM_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("35c21723-8dd7-4fea-9404-b26660fa6db1"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Zero-Sum Thinking & Zero-Sum Bias
+ Zero-sum thinking perceives situations as zero-sum games, where one person's gain would be another's loss. The term is
+ derived from game theory. However, unlike the game theory concept, zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological
+ construct — a person's subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying
+ "your gain is my loss" (or conversely, "your loss is my gain").
+
+ Rozycka-Tran et al. (2015) defined zero-sum thinking as:
+ "A general belief system about the antagonistic nature of social relations, shared by people in a society or culture
+ and based on the implicit assumption that a finite amount of goods exists in the world, in which one person's winning
+ makes others the losers, and vice versa ... a relatively permanent and general conviction that social relations are
+ like a zero-sum game. People who share this conviction believe that success, especially economic success, is possible
+ only at the expense of other people's failures."
+
+ Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people's tendency to intuitively judge that a
+ situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case. This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that
+ situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions. In economics,
+ "zero-sum fallacy" generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.
+
+ ## Examples
+ There are many examples of zero-sum thinking, some of them fallacious.
+
+ - When jurors assume that any evidence compatible with more than one theory offers no support for any theory, even
+ if the evidence is incompatible with some possibilities or the theories are not mutually exclusive.
+
+ - When students in a classroom think they are being graded on a curve when in fact they are being graded based
+ on predetermined standards.
+
+ - In a negotiation when one negotiator thinks that they can only gain at the expense of the other party (i.e.,
+ that mutual gain is not possible).
+
+ - In the context of social group competition, the belief that more resources for one group (e.g., immigrants)
+ means less for others (e.g., non-immigrants).
+
+ - Jack of all trades, master of none: the idea that having more skills means having less aptitude (also known
+ as compensatory reasoning).
+
+ - In copyright infringement debate, the idea that every unauthorized duplication is a lost sale.
+
+ - When politicians argue that international trade must mean that one party is "winning" and another is "losing"
+ when transfer of goods and services at mutually-agreeable prices is in general mutually beneficial, or that a
+ trade deficit represents "losing" money to another country.
+
+ - Group membership is sometimes treated as zero-sum, such that stronger membership in one group is seen as
+ weaker membership in another.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SURVIVORSHIP_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("87ef31b2-6b2a-4fbb-9974-fefec5480c28"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Survivorship Bias
+ Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection
+ process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data.
+
+ Survivorship bias is a form of selection bias that can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because multiple
+ failures are overlooked, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial
+ performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property,
+ rather than just coincidence as in correlation "proves" causality.
+
+ Another kind of survivorship bias would involve thinking that an incident happened in a particular way when
+ the only people who were involved in the incident who can speak about it are those who survived it. Even if
+ one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, making it
+ biased.
+
+ ## Examples
+ ### Finance and Economics
+ In finance, survivorship bias is the tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies
+ because they no longer exist. It often causes the results of studies to skew higher because only companies
+ that were successful enough to survive until the end of the period are included. For example, a mutual fund
+ company's selection of funds today will include only those that are successful now. Many losing funds are
+ closed and merged into other funds to hide poor performance. In theory, 70% of extant funds could truthfully
+ claim to have performance in the first quartile of their peers, if the peer group includes funds that have
+ closed.
+
+ ### Business
+ Michael Shermer in Scientific American and Larry Smith of the University of Waterloo have described
+ how advice about commercial success distorts perceptions of it by ignoring all of the businesses and college
+ dropouts that failed. Journalist and author David McRaney observes that the "advice business is a monopoly
+ run by survivors. When something becomes a non-survivor, it is either completely eliminated, or whatever
+ voice it has is muted to zero". Alec Liu wrote in Vice that "for every Mark Zuckerberg, there's
+ thousands of also-rans, who had parties no one ever attended, obsolete before we ever knew they
+ existed."
+
+ In his book The Black Swan, financial writer Nassim Taleb called the data obscured by survivorship bias
+ "silent evidence".
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SUBADDITIVITY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("73e39503-4a2e-4090-88c2-5ce20565a722"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Subadditivity Effect
+ The subadditivity effect is the tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the
+ probabilities of the parts.
+
+ Example:
+ For instance, subjects in one experiment judged the probability of death from cancer in the United
+ States was 18%, the probability from heart attack was 22%, and the probability of death from
+ "other natural causes" was 33%. Other participants judged the probability of death from a natural
+ cause was 58%. Natural causes are made up of precisely cancer, heart attack, and "other natural
+ causes," however, the sum of the latter three probabilities was 73%, and not 58%. According to
+ Tversky and Koehler (1994) this kind of result is observed consistently.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subadditivity_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DENOMINATION_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a913b2cf-dc2f-4dd9-87dc-3e11efb9457b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Denomination Effect
+ The denomination effect is a form of cognitive bias relating to currency, suggesting people may be
+ less likely to spend larger currency denominations than their equivalent value in smaller denominations.
+ It was proposed by Priya Raghubir, professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, and
+ Joydeep Srivastava, professor at University of Maryland, in their 2009 paper "Denomination Effect".
+
+ Raghubir and Srivastava conducted three studies in their research on the denomination effect; their
+ findings suggested people may be more likely to spend money represented by smaller denominations and
+ that consumers may prefer to receive money in a large denomination when there is a need to control
+ spending. The denomination effect can occur when large denominations are perceived as less exchangeable
+ than smaller denominations.
+
+ The effect's influence on spending decisions has implications throughout various sectors in society,
+ including consumer welfare, monetary policy and the finance industry. For example, during the Great
+ Recession, one businessman observed employees using more coins rather than banknotes in an office
+ vending machine, perceiving the customers used coins to feel thriftier. Raghubir and Srivastava
+ also suggested the effect may involve incentives to alter future behavior and that a large
+ denomination can serve as a mechanism to prevent the urge to spend.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("9444923f-90c9-4269-a4dc-291513fa6d12"), // MENTAL_ACCOUNTING
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denomination_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MILLERS_LAW = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("81ca1f50-aaf9-4416-a94a-3676b26e510a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Miller's Law
+ The observation, also by George A. Miller, that the number of objects the average person can hold in
+ working memory is about seven. It was put forward in a 1956 edition of Psychological Review in a
+ paper titled "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two".
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%27s_law",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_TRANSPARENCY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("c727e47c-da6f-4804-a1d0-9027af645218"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusion of Transparency
+ The illusion of transparency is a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal
+ mental state is known by others. Another manifestation of the illusion of transparency (sometimes called
+ the observer's illusion of transparency) is a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand
+ others' personal mental states. This cognitive bias is similar to the illusion of asymmetric insight.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("a44a6bcf-b2b8-47f1-84e0-d740af56aa1e"), // ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CURSE_OF_KNOWLEDGE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("697f58a7-45d7-4268-8951-81681fb005de"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Curse of Knowledge
+ The curse of knowledge, also called the curse of expertise or expert's curse, is a cognitive bias
+ that occurs when a person who has specialized knowledge assumes that others share in that knowledge.
+
+ For example, in a classroom setting, teachers may have difficulty if they cannot put themselves
+ in the position of the student. A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties
+ that a young student encounters when learning a new subject for the first time. This curse of
+ knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears
+ best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SPOTLIGHT_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("1a6f6356-6d61-4892-8494-0257a7fa718b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Spotlight Effect
+ The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being
+ noticed more than they really are. Being that one is constantly in the center of one's own world,
+ an accurate evaluation of how much one is noticed by others is uncommon. The reason for the spotlight
+ effect is the innate tendency to forget that although one is the center of one's own world, one is
+ not the center of everyone else's. This tendency is especially prominent when one does something
+ atypical.
+
+ Research has empirically shown that such drastic over-estimation of one's effect on others is widely
+ common. Many professionals in social psychology encourage people to be conscious of the spotlight
+ effect and to allow this phenomenon to moderate the extent to which one believes one is in a
+ social spotlight.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias EXTRINSIC_INCENTIVE_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("07237744-843d-4c0c-81b5-0c9c8664daea"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Extrinsic Incentives Bias
+ The extrinsic incentives bias is an attributional bias according to which people attribute relatively
+ more to "extrinsic incentives" (such as monetary reward) than to "intrinsic incentives" (such as
+ learning a new skill) when weighing the motives of others rather than themselves.
+
+ It is a counter-example to the fundamental attribution error as according to the extrinsic bias
+ others are presumed to have situational motivations while oneself is seen as having dispositional
+ motivations. This is the opposite of what the fundamental attribution error would predict. It also
+ might help to explain some of the backfiring effects that can occur when extrinsic incentives are
+ attached to activities that people are intrinsically motivated to do. The term was first proposed
+ by Chip Heath, citing earlier research by others in management science.
+
+ Example:
+ In the simplest experiment Heath reported, MBA students were asked to rank the expected job motivations
+ of Citibank customer service representatives. Their average ratings were as follows:
+
+ 1. Amount of pay
+ 2. Having job security
+ 3. Quality of fringe benefits
+ 4. Amount of praise from your supervisor
+ 5. Doing something that makes you feel good about yourself
+ 6. Developing skills and abilities
+ 7. Accomplishing something worthwhile
+ 8. Learning new things
+
+ Actual customer service representatives rank ordered their own motivations as follows:
+
+ 1. Developing skills and abilities
+ 2. Accomplishing something worthwhile
+ 3. Learning new things
+ 4. Quality of fringe benefits
+ 5. Having job security
+ 6. Doing something that makes you feel good about yourself
+ 7. Amount of pay
+ 8. Amount of praise from your supervisor
+
+ The order of the predicted and actual reported motivations was nearly reversed; in particular, pay was
+ rated first by others but near last for respondents of themselves. Similar effects were observed when
+ MBA students rated managers and their classmates.
+
+ Debiasing:
+ Heath suggests trying to infer others' motivations as one would by inferring one's own motivations.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("bf8f304d-2e8e-4a90-a9c5-7bd56f6058a6"), // BACKFIRE_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrinsic_incentives_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_EXTERNAL_AGENCY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("184c9dc0-6885-4dee-b777-bc1725cc7e2c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusion of External Agency
+ People typically underestimate their capacity to generate satisfaction with future outcomes. When people
+ experience such self-generated satisfaction, they may mistakenly conclude that it was caused by an
+ influential, insightful, and benevolent external agent.
+
+ When outcomes are unchangeable, people are more likely to turn ‘truly mediocre’ into ‘falsely great’.
+ This subjective transformation is often termed a psychological immune response, in that it is our brain
+ kicking in to protect us from the emotional consequences of undesirable outcomes. The illusion of external
+ agency is thought to arise from this undetected transformation of ‘truly mediocre’ outcomes to ‘falsely
+ great’ ones.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links = [],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a44a6bcf-b2b8-47f1-84e0-d740af56aa1e"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusion of Asymmetric Insight
+ The illusion of asymmetric insight is a cognitive bias whereby people perceive their knowledge of others to
+ surpass other people's knowledge of them. This bias "has been traced to people's tendency to view their own
+ spontaneous or off-the-cuff responses to others' questions as relatively unrevealing even though they view
+ others' similar responses as meaningful".
+
+ A study finds that people seem to believe that they know themselves better than their peers know themselves
+ and that their social group knows and understands other social groups better than other social groups know
+ them. For example: Person A knows Person A better than Person B knows Person B or Person A. This bias may be
+ sustained by a few cognitive beliefs, including:
+
+ - The personal conviction that observed behaviors are more revealing of other people than of the self, while
+ private thoughts and feelings are more revealing of the self.
+
+ - The more an individual perceives negative traits ascribed to someone else, the more doubt individuals express
+ about this person's self-knowledge. But, this doubt does not exist for our own self-knowledge. (For example:
+ if Person A believes Person B has some great character flaw, Person A will distrust Person B's self-knowledge,
+ while sustaining that they do not hold that same flaw in self-knowledge.)
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("c727e47c-da6f-4804-a1d0-9027af645218"), // ILLUSION_OF_TRANSPARENCY
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("f0ad095e-8e9c-4bfb-855e-11fb5dd58cea"), // NAÏVE_REALISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias TELESCOPING_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("88b90cfb-93f5-429b-b00f-fabe7ada485c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Telescoping Effect
+ In cognitive psychology, the telescoping effect (or telescoping bias) refers to the temporal displacement of an
+ event whereby people perceive recent events as being more remote than they are and distant events as being more
+ recent than they are. The former is known as backward telescoping or time expansion, and the latter as is known
+ as forward telescoping.
+
+ The approximate time frame in which events switch from being displaced backward in time to forward in time is three
+ years, with events occurring three years in the past being equally likely to be reported with forward telescoping
+ bias as with backward telescoping bias. Although telescoping occurs in both the forward and backward directions,
+ in general the effect is to increase the number of events reported too recently. This net effect in the forward
+ direction is because forces that impair memory, such as lack of salience, also impair time perception.
+
+ Telescoping leads to an over-reporting of the frequency of events. This over-reporting is because participants
+ include events beyond the period, either events that are too recent for the target time period (backward
+ telescoping) or events that are too old for the target time period (forward telescoping).
+
+ ## Real-world example
+ A real-world example of the telescoping effect is the case of Ferdi Elsas, an infamous kidnapper and murderer
+ in the Netherlands. When he was let out of prison, most of the general population did not believe he had been
+ in prison long enough. Due to forward telescoping, people thought Ferdi Elsas' sentence started more recently
+ than it actually did. Telescoping has important real world applications, especially in survey research. Marketing
+ firms often use surveys to ask when consumers last bought a product, and government agencies often use surveys
+ to discover information about drug abuse or about victimology. Telescoping may bias answers to these questions.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescoping_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ROSY_RETROSPECTION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5e08ec28-0814-499f-82bd-eb7afb2080aa"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Rosy Retrospection
+ Rosy retrospection is a proposed psychological phenomenon of recalling the past more positively than it
+ was actually experienced. The highly unreliable nature of human memory is well documented and accepted
+ amongst psychologists. Some research suggests a 'blue retrospective' which also exaggerates negative
+ emotions.
+
+ Though it is a cognitive bias which distorts one's view of reality, it is suggested that rosy retrospection
+ serves a useful purpose in increasing self-esteem and sense of well-being. Simplifications and exaggerations
+ of memories such as occur in rosy retrospection may make it easier for the brain to store long-term memories,
+ as removing details may reduce the burden of those memories by requiring the generation and maintenance of
+ fewer neural connections.
+
+ Declinism, the predisposition to view the past more favourably and the future more negatively, may be related
+ to cognitive biases like rosy retrospection. Rosy retrospection is very closely related to the concept of
+ nostalgia, though the broader phenomenon of nostalgia is not usually seen as based on a biased perspective.
+
+ The English idiom "rose-colored glasses" or "rose-tinted glasses" refers to perceiving something more
+ positively than it is in reality. The Romans occasionally referred to this phenomenon with the Latin phrase
+ "memoria praeteritorum bonorum", which translates into English roughly as "memory of good past", or more
+ idiomatically as "good old days".
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9edd2f0-8503-4eb5-a4c3-369fcb318894"), // HINDSIGHT_BIAS
+ new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"), // OPTIMISM_BIAS
+ new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
+ new Guid("23e4b2ad-c915-4d47-ab2d-79a3dce2a7e5"), // DECLINISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PROJECTION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("61ca5b76-66d0-4ce2-b260-7fd42696000a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Projection Bias
+
+ ## Affective forecasting
+ Affective forecasting, also known as hedonic forecasting or the hedonic forecasting mechanism, is the
+ prediction of one's affect (emotional state) in the future. As a process that influences preferences,
+ decisions, and behavior, affective forecasting is studied by both psychologists and economists, with
+ broad applications.
+
+ ## Bias
+ Projection bias is the tendency to falsely project current preferences onto a future event. When people
+ are trying to estimate their emotional state in the future they attempt to give an unbiased estimate.
+ However, people's assessments are contaminated by their current emotional state. Thus, it may be difficult
+ for them to predict their emotional state in the future, an occurrence known as mental contamination. For
+ example, if a college student was currently in a negative mood because he just found out he failed a test,
+ and if the college student forecasted how much he would enjoy a party two weeks later, his current negative
+ mood may influence his forecast. In order to make an accurate forecast the student would need to be aware
+ that his forecast is biased due to mental contamination, be motivated to correct the bias, and be able to
+ correct the bias in the right direction and magnitude.
+
+ Projection bias can arise from empathy gaps (or hot/cold empathy gaps), which occur when the present and
+ future phases of affective forecasting are characterized by different states of physiological arousal,
+ which the forecaster fails to take into account. For example, forecasters in a state of hunger are likely
+ to overestimate how much they will want to eat later, overlooking the effect of their hunger on future
+ preferences. As with projection bias, economists use the visceral motivations that produce empathy gaps
+ to help explain impulsive or self-destructive behaviors, such as smoking.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("8e0f2242-6ad8-4e1e-a9e5-b55a4166781a"), // IMPACT_BIAS
+ new Guid("e4e091cf-fed3-4c09-9c21-509db0b2729b"), // HOT_COLD_EMPATHY_GAP
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_forecasting#Projection_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IMPACT_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("8e0f2242-6ad8-4e1e-a9e5-b55a4166781a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Impact Bias
+
+ ## Affective forecasting
+ Affective forecasting, also known as hedonic forecasting or the hedonic forecasting mechanism, is the
+ prediction of one's affect (emotional state) in the future. As a process that influences preferences,
+ decisions, and behavior, affective forecasting is studied by both psychologists and economists, with
+ broad applications.
+
+ ## Bias
+ One of the most common sources of error in affective forecasting across various populations and situations
+ is impact bias, the tendency to overestimate the emotional impact of a future event, whether in terms of
+ intensity or duration. The tendencies to overestimate intensity and duration are both robust and reliable
+ errors found in affective forecasting.
+
+ One study documenting impact bias examined college students participating in a housing lottery. These students
+ predicted how happy or unhappy they would be one year after being assigned to either a desirable or an undesirable
+ dormitory. These college students predicted that the lottery outcomes would lead to meaningful differences in
+ their own level of happiness, but follow-up questionnaires revealed that students assigned to desirable or
+ undesirable dormitories reported nearly the same levels of happiness. Thus, differences in forecasts
+ overestimated the impact of the housing assignment on future happiness.
+
+ Some studies specifically address "durability bias," the tendency to overestimate the length of time future
+ emotional responses will last. Even if people accurately estimate the intensity of their future emotions, they
+ may not be able to estimate their duration. Durability bias is generally stronger in reaction to negative events.
+ This is important because people tend to work toward events they believe will cause lasting happiness, and according
+ to durability bias, people might be working toward the wrong things. Similar to impact bias, durability bias causes
+ a person to overemphasize where the root cause of their happiness lies.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("61ca5b76-66d0-4ce2-b260-7fd42696000a"), // PROJECTION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_forecasting#Impact_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PRO_INNOVATION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("fa033e14-41f3-45a9-887f-17e30f24c4e5"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Pro-Innovation Bias
+ In diffusion of innovation theory, a pro-innovation bias is a belief that innovation should be adopted by the whole
+ society without the need for its alteration. The innovation's "champion" has a such strong bias in favor of the
+ innovation, that they may not see its limitations or weaknesses and continue to promote it nonetheless.
+
+ Example:
+ A feeling of nuclear optimism emerged in the 1950s in which it was believed that all power generators in the future
+ would be atomic in nature. The atomic bomb would render all conventional explosives obsolete and nuclear power plants
+ would do the same for power sources such as coal and oil. There was a general feeling that everything would use a
+ nuclear power source of some sort, in a positive and productive way, from irradiating food to preserve it, to the
+ development of nuclear medicine. There would be an age of peace and plenty in which atomic energy would "provide the
+ power needed to desalinate water for the thirsty, irrigate the deserts for the hungry, and fuel interstellar travel
+ deep into outer space". This use would render the Atomic Age as significant a step in technological progress as the
+ first smelting of Bronze, of Iron, or the commencement of the Industrial Revolution.
+
+ Roger Smith, then chairman of General Motors, said in 1986: "By the turn of the century, we will live in a paperless
+ society." In the late 20th century, there were many predictions of this kind. This transformation has so far not taken
+ place.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-innovation_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias TIME_SAVING_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("f262db5e-b668-4bf9-9591-e38e153717da"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Time-Saving Bias
+ Time-saving bias is a concept that describes people's tendency to misestimate the time that could be saved (or
+ lost) when increasing (or decreasing) speed. In general, people underestimate the time that could be saved when
+ increasing from a relatively low speed—e.g., 25 mph (40 km/h) or 40 mph (64 km/h)—and overestimate the time that
+ could be saved when increasing from a relatively high speed—e.g., 55 mph (89 km/h) or 90 mph (140 km/h). People
+ also underestimate the time that could be lost when decreasing from a low speed and overestimate the time that
+ could be lost when decreasing from a high speed.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-saving_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PLANNING_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("144a4177-96fa-428f-8f42-bd7c3671c8a6"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Planning Fallacy
+ The planning fallacy is a phenomenon in which predictions about how much time will be needed to complete a future task
+ display an optimism bias and underestimate the time needed. This phenomenon sometimes occurs regardless of the individual's
+ knowledge that past tasks of a similar nature have taken longer to complete than generally planned. The bias affects
+ predictions only about one's own tasks. On the other hand, when outside observers predict task completion times, they
+ tend to exhibit a pessimistic bias, overestimating the time needed. The planning fallacy involves estimates of task
+ completion times more optimistic than those encountered in similar projects in the past.
+
+ Real-world examples:
+
+ - The Sydney Opera House was expected to be completed in 1963. A scaled-down version opened in 1973, a decade later.
+ The original cost was estimated at $7 million, but its delayed completion led to a cost of $102 million.
+
+ - The Eurofighter Typhoon defense project took six years longer than expected, with an overrun cost of 8 billion euros.
+
+ - The Big Dig which undergrounded the Boston Central Artery was completed seven years later than planned, for $8.08
+ billion on a budget of $2.8 billion (in 1988 dollars).
+
+ - The Denver International Airport opened sixteen months later than scheduled, with a total cost of $4.8 billion,
+ over $2 billion more than expected.
+
+ - The Berlin Brandenburg Airport is another case. After 15 years of planning, construction began in 2006, with the
+ opening planned for October 2011. There were numerous delays. It was finally opened on October 31, 2020. The
+ original budget was €2.83 billion; current projections are close to €10.0 billion.
+
+ - Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 faced severe delay and a cost overrun. The construction started in 2005 and
+ was expected to be completed by 2009, but completed only in 2023. Initially, the estimated cost of the project was
+ around 3 billion euros, but the cost has escalated to approximately 10 billion euros.
+
+ - California High-Speed Rail is still under construction, with tens of billions of dollars in overruns expected,
+ and connections to major cities postponed until after completion of the rural segment.
+
+ - The James Webb Space Telescope went over budget by approximately 9 billion dollars, and was sent into orbit 14
+ years later than its originally planned launch date.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"), // OPTIMISM_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PESSIMISM_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("67041978-ac8e-4254-ae2c-509e7301619f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Pessimism Bias
+ The opposite of optimism bias is pessimism bias (or pessimistic bias), because the principles of the optimistic
+ bias continue to be in effect in situations where individuals regard themselves as worse off than others. Optimism
+ may occur from either a distortion of personal estimates, representing personal optimism, or a distortion for others,
+ representing personal pessimism.
+
+ Pessimism bias is an effect in which people exaggerate the likelihood that negative things will happen to them. It
+ contrasts with optimism bias. People with depression are particularly likely to exhibit pessimism bias. Surveys of
+ smokers have found that their ratings of their risk of heart disease showed a small but significant pessimism bias;
+ however, the literature as a whole is inconclusive.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"), // OPTIMISM_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias#Pessimism_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DECLINISM = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("23e4b2ad-c915-4d47-ab2d-79a3dce2a7e5"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Declinism
+ Declinism is the belief that a society or institution is tending towards decline. Particularly, it is the
+ predisposition, caused by cognitive biases such as rosy retrospection, to view the past more favourably and
+ the future more negatively. "The great summit of declinism" according to Adam Gopnick, "was established in
+ 1918, in the book that gave decline its good name in publishing: the German historian Oswald Spengler's
+ best-selling, thousand-page work *The Decline of the West*."
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("5e08ec28-0814-499f-82bd-eb7afb2080aa"), // ROSY_RETROSPECTION
+ new Guid("8533edf9-3117-48c5-8f78-efbd996911f0"), // CONSERVATISM_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declinism",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias MORAL_LUCK = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7534480a-1abf-40d5-acec-ace1bfc5be3a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Moral Luck
+ Moral luck describes circumstances whereby a moral agent is assigned moral blame or praise for an action or
+ its consequences even if it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either the action or its
+ consequences.
+
+ Example: There are two people driving cars, Driver A and Driver B. They are alike in every way. Driver A is
+ driving down a road and in a moment of inattention runs a red light as a child is crossing the street. Driver
+ A slams the brakes, swerves, and does everything to try to avoid hitting the child. Alas, the car hits and
+ kills the child. Driver B in the meantime also runs a red light, but since no one is crossing, gets a traffic
+ ticket but nothing more.
+
+ If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or
+ failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally, or praised equally, as may be
+ the case. However, due to the effect of Moral Luck, if a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers
+ A and B, there is very good reason to expect them to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OUTCOME_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a3f4415d-b7fa-4668-bcc2-20c79f714bdd"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Outcome Bias
+ The outcome bias is an error made in evaluating the quality of a decision when the outcome of that decision is
+ already known. Specifically, the outcome effect occurs when the same "behavior produce[s] more ethical condemnation
+ when it happen[s] to produce bad rather than good outcome, even if the outcome is determined by chance."
+
+ While similar to the hindsight bias, the two phenomena are markedly different. Hindsight bias focuses on memory
+ distortion to favor the actor, while the outcome bias focuses exclusively on weighting the outcome heavier than
+ other pieces of information in deciding if a past decision was correct.
+
+ The outcome bias is closely related to the philosophical concept of moral luck as in both concepts, the evaluation
+ of actions is influenced by factors that are not logically justifiable.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("7534480a-1abf-40d5-acec-ace1bfc5be3a"), // MORAL_LUCK
+ new Guid("b9edd2f0-8503-4eb5-a4c3-369fcb318894"), // HINDSIGHT_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HINDSIGHT_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b9edd2f0-8503-4eb5-a4c3-369fcb318894"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hindsight Bias
+ Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency
+ for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they were. After an event has occurred,
+ people often believe that they could have predicted or perhaps even known with a high degree of certainty what
+ the outcome of the event would be before it occurred. Hindsight bias may cause distortions of memories of what
+ was known or believed before an event occurred and is a significant source of overconfidence in one’s ability
+ to predict the outcomes of future events. Examples of hindsight bias can be seen in the writings of historians
+ describing the outcomes of battles, in physicians’ recall of clinical trials, and in criminal or civil trials
+ as people tend to assign responsibility on the basis of the supposed predictability of accidents.
+
+ Hindsight bias has both positive and negative consequences. The bias also plays a role in the process of
+ decision-making within the medical field.
+
+ Positive consequences of hindsight bias is an increase in one's confidence and performance, as long as the bias
+ distortion is reasonable and does not create overconfidence. Another positive consequence is that one's
+ self-assurance of their knowledge and decision-making, even if it ends up being a poor decision, can be
+ beneficial to others; allowing others to experience new things or to learn from those who made the poor
+ decisions.
+
+ Negative: Hindsight bias causes overconfidence in one's performance relative to others. Hindsight bias
+ decreases one's rational thinking because of when a person experiences strong emotions, which in turn
+ decreases rational thinking. Another negative consequence of hindsight bias is the interference of one's
+ ability to learn from experience, as a person is unable to look back on past decisions and learn from
+ mistakes. A third consequence is a decrease in sensitivity toward a victim by the person who caused the
+ wrongdoing. The person demoralizes the victim and does not allow for a correction of behaviors and actions.
+
+ Medical decision-making: Hindsight bias may lead to overconfidence and malpractice in regards to physicians.
+ Hindsight bias and overconfidence is often attributed to the number of years of experience the physician has.
+ After a procedure, physicians may have a "knew it the whole time" attitude, when in reality they may not have
+ known it. Medical decision support systems are designed to assist physicians in diagnosis and treatment, and
+ have been suggested as a way to counteract hindsight bias. However, these decision support systems come with
+ drawbacks, as going against a recommended decision resulted in more punitive jury outcomes when physicians
+ were found liable for causing harm.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("af63ce77-f6c6-4e0f-8a9e-3daedc497f9a"), // CONFIRMATION_BIAS
+ new Guid("697f58a7-45d7-4268-8951-81681fb005de"), // CURSE_OF_KNOWLEDGE
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ #endregion
+
+ #region NEED_TO_ACT_FAST
+
+ private static readonly Bias LESS_IS_BETTER_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("593f2a10-46a6-471e-9ab3-86df740df6f2"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Less-Is-Better Effect
+ The less-is-better effect is a type of preference reversal that occurs when the lesser
+ or smaller alternative of a proposition is preferred when evaluated separately, but not
+ evaluated together.
+
+ In a 1998 study, Hsee, a professor at the Graduate School of Business of The University
+ of Chicago, discovered a less-is-better effect in three contexts:
+
+ - (1) a person giving a $45 scarf (from scarves ranging from $5-$50) as a gift was
+ perceived to be more generous than one giving a $55 coat (from coats ranging from $50-$500);
+
+ - (2) an overfilled ice cream serving with 7 oz of ice cream was valued more than an underfilled
+ serving with 8 oz of ice cream;
+
+ - (3) a dinnerware set with 24 intact pieces was judged more favourably than one with 31 intact
+ pieces (including the same 24) plus a few broken ones.
+
+ Hsee noted that the less-is-better effect was observed "only when the options were evaluated
+ separately, and reversed itself when the options were juxtaposed.” Hsee explained these seemingly
+ counterintuitive results “in terms of the evaluability hypothesis, which states that separate
+ evaluations of objects are often influenced by attributes that are easy to evaluate rather than
+ by those that are important."
+
+ The less-is-better effect occurs only under specific circumstances. Evidence has shown that it
+ manifests itself only when the options are evaluated individually; it disappears when they are
+ assessed jointly. "If the options are put right next to each other, the effect disappears, as
+ people see the true value of both," states one source. "It's just the gifts in isolation that
+ give people a flipped sense of happiness and gratitude."
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less-is-better_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OCCAMS_RAZOR = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("3d5e3115-a98e-4d11-9760-4a3ddbbe6c69"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Occam’s Razor
+ Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Alternatively,
+ other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones.
+ Controversial. This is not a cognitive bias. It is a heuristic, but not one that deviates from
+ rationality in judgment.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CONJUNCTION_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b0c60f50-cc40-4bde-996c-1833741622a0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Conjunction Fallacy
+ The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is an inference that a conjoint set of two or more
+ specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set, in violation of the laws of
+ probability. It is a type of formal fallacy.
+
+ The most often-cited example of this fallacy originated with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman:
+
+ "Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she
+ was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear
+ demonstrations."
+
+ Which is more probable?
+
+ - Linda is a bank teller.
+ - Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
+
+ The majority of those asked chose option 2. However, the probability of two events occurring together
+ (that is, in conjunction) is always less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring itself.
+
+ Tversky and Kahneman argue that most people get this problem wrong because they use a heuristic (an easily
+ calculated) procedure called representativeness to make this kind of judgment: Option 2 seems more
+ "representative" of Linda from the description of her, even though it is clearly mathematically less likely.
+
+ ## Debiasing
+ Drawing attention to set relationships, using frequencies instead of probabilities, and/or thinking
+ diagrammatically (e.g. use a Venn diagram) sharply reduce the error in some forms of the conjunction
+ fallacy.
+
+ In one experiment the question of the Linda problem was reformulated as follows:
+
+ "There are 100 persons who fit the description above (that is, Linda's). How many of them are:
+
+ - Bank tellers? __ of 100
+ - Bank tellers and active in the feminist movement? __ of 100"
+
+ Whereas previously 85% of participants gave the wrong answer (bank teller and active in the feminist
+ movement), in experiments done with this questioning the proportion of incorrect answers is dramatically
+ reduced (to ~20%). Participants were forced to use a mathematical approach and thus recognized the
+ difference more easily.
+
+ However, in some tasks only based on frequencies, not on stories, that used clear logical formulations,
+ conjunction fallacies continued to occur dominantly, with only few exceptions, when the observed pattern
+ of frequencies resembled a conjunction.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DELMORE_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("93a3d088-183f-47e7-a010-721f1cd6bac8"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Delmore Effect
+ The Delmore effect is about how we tend to set clearer and more detailed goals for less important areas
+ of our lives. In other words, we distract ourselves from the most important tasks by focusing on the
+ easy stuff instead.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://www.42courses.com/blog/home/2022/9/2/42-effects-you-should-know-part-2",
+ "https://bias.transhumanity.net/delmore-effect/",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PARKINSONS_LAW_OF_TRIVIALITY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d3ec6a5d-91cf-4aec-8541-bd87e1ad834b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Law of Triviality
+ The law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 argument that people within an organization commonly
+ give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Parkinson provides the example of a fictional committee
+ whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions
+ about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bicycle shed,
+ while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult
+ and complex task.
+
+ The law has been applied to software development and other activities. The terms bicycle-shed effect,
+ bike-shed effect, and bike-shedding were coined based on Parkinson's example; it was popularized in the
+ Berkeley Software Distribution community by the Danish software developer Poul-Henning Kamp in 1999
+ and, due to that, has since become popular within the field of software development generally.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias RHYME_AS_REASON_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("0d290221-81a0-4e44-bdec-30709117d90d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Rhyme as Reason Effect
+ The rhyme-as-reason effect, also known as the Eaton–Rosen phenomenon, is a cognitive bias where sayings
+ or aphorisms are perceived as more accurate or truthful when they rhyme. In experiments, participants
+ evaluated variations of sayings that either rhymed or did not rhyme. Those that rhymed were consistently
+ judged as more truthful, even when the meaning was controlled for. For instance, the rhyming saying "What
+ sobriety conceals, alcohol reveals" was rated as more accurate on average than its non-rhyming counterpart,
+ "What sobriety conceals, alcohol unmasks," across different groups of subjects (each group assessed the
+ accuracy of only one version of the statement).
+
+ This effect may be explained by the Keats heuristic, which suggests that people assess a statement's truth
+ based on its aesthetic qualities. Another explanation is the fluency heuristic, which posits that statements
+ are preferred due to their ease of cognitive processing.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("cadafb8f-d1ed-4c92-9c29-2f1cb0797a66"), // ILLUSORY_TRUTH_EFFECT
+ new Guid("1c5aa90a-e732-4f45-bf26-1b86c49a82f9"), // BELIEF_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme-as-reason_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BELIEF_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("1c5aa90a-e732-4f45-bf26-1b86c49a82f9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Belief Bias
+ Belief bias is the tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion
+ rather than how strongly they justify that conclusion. A person is more likely to accept an argument that
+ supports a conclusion that aligns with their values, beliefs and prior knowledge, while rejecting counter
+ arguments to the conclusion. Belief bias is an extremely common and therefore significant form of error;
+ we can easily be blinded by our beliefs and reach the wrong conclusion. Belief bias has been found to
+ influence various reasoning tasks, including conditional reasoning, relation reasoning and transitive reasoning.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias INFORMATION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d0e251bb-3e09-43f5-8c5e-bc933e743509"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Information Bias
+ The tendency to seek information when it does not affect action. An example of information bias is believing
+ that the more information that can be acquired to make a decision, the better, even if that extra information
+ is irrelevant for the decision.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_bias_(psychology)",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias AMBIGUITY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("e9b00144-0cb3-46de-8a68-09daa00de1e4"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Ambiguity Effect
+ The ambiguity effect is a cognitive tendency where decision making is affected by a lack of information, or
+ "ambiguity". The effect implies that people tend to select options for which the probability of a favorable
+ outcome is known, over an option for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown. The effect was
+ first described by Daniel Ellsberg in 1961.
+
+ One possible explanation of the effect is that people have a rule of thumb (heuristic) to avoid options where
+ information is missing. This will often lead them to seek out the missing information. In many cases, though,
+ the information cannot be obtained. The effect is often the result of calling some particular missing piece of
+ information to the person's attention.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("44c6efd7-53f1-4d22-82fe-25e941390089"), // NEGLECT_OF_PROBABILITY
+ new Guid("73ca0caa-25e5-4edb-91d4-f375a773f82c"), // APPEAL_TO_POSSIBILITY
+ new Guid("b0c60f50-cc40-4bde-996c-1833741622a0"), // CONJUNCTION_FALLACY
+ new Guid("656c78c9-d75a-4c07-a80d-f3a5026f859c"), // PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias STATUS_QUO_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b9e05a25-ac09-407d-8aee-f54a04decf0b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Status Quo Bias
+ A status quo bias or default bias is a cognitive bias which results from a preference for the maintenance
+ of one's existing state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point,
+ and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss or gain. Corresponding to different alternatives,
+ this current baseline or default option is perceived and evaluated by individuals as a positive.
+
+ Status quo bias should be distinguished from a rational preference for the status quo ante, as when the
+ current state of affairs is objectively superior to the available alternatives, or when imperfect information
+ is a significant problem. A large body of evidence, however, shows that status quo bias frequently affects
+ human decision-making. Status quo bias should also be distinguished from psychological inertia, which refers
+ to a lack of intervention in the current course of affairs.
+
+ The bias intersects with other non-rational cognitive processes such as loss aversion, in which losses
+ comparative to gains are weighed to a greater extent. Further non-rational cognitive processes include
+ existence bias, endowment effect, longevity, mere exposure, and regret avoidance. Experimental evidence
+ for the detection of status quo bias is seen through the use of the reversal test. A vast amount of
+ experimental and field examples exist. Behaviour in regard to economics, retirement plans, health, and
+ ethical choices show evidence of the status quo bias.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), // ENDOWMENT_EFFECT
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("09527928-6417-4eea-9719-d8ed4748691f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Social Comparison Bias
+ Social comparison bias is the tendency to have feelings of dislike and competitiveness with someone seen as
+ physically, socially, or mentally better than oneself. Social comparison bias or social comparison theory is
+ the idea that individuals determine their own worth based on how they compare to others. The theory was
+ developed in 1954 by psychologist Leon Festinger. This can be compared to social comparison, which is
+ believed to be central to achievement motivation, feelings of injustice, depression, jealousy, and people's
+ willingness to remain in relationships or jobs. The basis of the theory is that people are believed to
+ compete for the best outcome in relation to their peers. For example, one might make a comparison between the
+ low-end department stores they go to frequently and the designer stores of their peers. Such comparisons may
+ evoke feelings of resentment, anger, and envy with their peers. This bias revolves mostly around wealth and
+ social status; it is unconscious and people who make these are largely unaware of them. In most cases, people
+ try to compare themselves to those in their peer group or with whom they are similar.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DECOY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("c8a532e9-5958-4894-aa0d-29ed6412780f"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Decoy Effect
+ In marketing, the decoy effect (or attraction effect or asymmetric dominance effect) is the phenomenon
+ whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented
+ with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated. An option is asymmetrically dominated when it is
+ inferior in all respects to one option; but, in comparison to the other option, it is inferior in some
+ respects and superior in others. In other words, in terms of specific attributes determining preferences,
+ it is completely dominated by (i.e., inferior to) one option and only partially dominated by the other.
+ When the asymmetrically dominated option is present, a higher percentage of consumers will prefer the
+ dominating option than when the asymmetrically dominated option is absent. The asymmetrically dominated
+ option is therefore a decoy serving to increase preference for the dominating option. The decoy effect
+ is also an example of the violation of the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom of decision
+ theory. More simply, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the
+ perceived preference between the other two.
+
+ The decoy effect is considered particularly important in choice theory because it is a violation of the
+ assumption of "regularity" present in all axiomatic choice models, for example in a Luce model of choice.
+ Regularity means that it should not be possible for the market share of any alternative to increase when
+ another alternative is added to the choice set. The new alternative should reduce, or at best leave unchanged,
+ the choice share of existing alternatives. Regularity is violated in the example shown below where a new
+ alternative C not only changes the relative shares of A and B but actually increases the share of A in
+ absolute terms. Similarly, the introduction of a new alternative D increases the share of B in absolute
+ terms.
+
+ ## Example
+ Suppose there is a consideration set (options to choose from in a menu) that involves smartphones. Consumers
+ will generally see higher storage capacity (number of GB) and lower price as positive attributes; while some
+ consumers may want a device that can store more photos, music, etc., other consumers will want a device that
+ costs less. In Consideration Set 1, two devices are available:
+
+ Consideration Set 1:
+ - A: $400, 300GB
+ - B: $300, 200GB
+
+ In this case, some consumers will prefer A for its greater storage capacity, while others will prefer B for
+ its lower price.
+
+ Now suppose that a new player, C, the "decoy", is added to the market; it is more expensive than both A, the
+ "target", and B, the "competitor", and has more storage than B but less than A:
+
+ Consideration Set 2:
+ - A (target): $400, 300GB
+ - B (competitor): $300, 200GB
+ - C (decoy): $450, 250GB
+
+ The addition of decoy C — which consumers would presumably avoid, given that a lower price can be paid for a
+ model with more storage—causes A, the dominating option, to be chosen more often than if only the two choices
+ in Consideration Set 1 existed; C affects consumer preferences by acting as a basis of comparison for A and B.
+ Because A is better than C in both respects, while B is only partially better than C, more consumers will
+ prefer A now than did before. C is therefore a decoy whose sole purpose is to increase sales of A.
+
+ Conversely, suppose that instead of C, a player D is introduced that has less storage than both A and B, and
+ that is more expensive than B but not as expensive as A:
+
+ Consideration Set 3:
+ - A (competitor): $400, 300GB
+ - B (target): $300, 200GB
+ - D (decoy): $350, 150GB
+
+ The result here is similar: consumers will not prefer D, because it is not as good as B in any respect. However,
+ whereas C increased preference for A, D has the opposite effect, increasing preference for B.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias REACTANCE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("d3c2cb4b-ec29-4cf3-a485-9a98e9f1f223"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Reactance
+ In psychology, reactance is an unpleasant motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, regulations, advice, or
+ recommendations that are perceived to threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when an
+ individual feels that an agent is attempting to limit one's choice of response and/or range of alternatives.
+
+ Reactance can occur when someone is heavily pressured into accepting a certain view or attitude. Reactance can
+ encourage an individual to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude which is indeed contrary to that which was
+ intended — which is to say, to a response of noncompliance — and can also increase resistance to persuasion.
+ Some individuals might employ reverse psychology in a bid to exploit reactance for their benefit, in an attempt
+ to influence someone to choose the opposite of what is being requested. Reactance can occur when an individual
+ senses that someone is trying to compel them to do something; often the individual will offer resistance and
+ attempt to extricate themselves from the situation.
+
+ Some individuals are naturally high in reactance, a personality characteristic called trait reactance.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("a9c7faa7-2368-4be5-9eda-a37ffd8f7ab1"), // REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a9c7faa7-2368-4be5-9eda-a37ffd8f7ab1"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Reverse Psychology
+ Reverse psychology is a technique involving the assertion of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation
+ that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what is actually desired. This technique relies on the psychological
+ phenomenon of reactance, in which a person has a negative emotional reaction to being persuaded, and thus chooses the option which is being
+ advocated against. This may work especially well on a person who is resistant by nature, while direct requests work best for people who are
+ compliant. The one being manipulated is usually unaware of what is really going on.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("d3c2cb4b-ec29-4cf3-a485-9a98e9f1f223"), // REACTANCE
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("755c8f9e-b172-4ff7-9797-9cc130bf4939"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # System Justification
+ System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically
+ palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual,
+ that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous
+ to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological
+ support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus
+ resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good,
+ legitimate, and even desirable.
+
+ According to system justification theory, people desire not only to hold favorable attitudes about themselves
+ (ego-justification) and the groups to which they belong (group-justification), but also to hold positive attitudes
+ about the overarching social structure in which they are entwined and find themselves obligated to (system-justification).
+ This system-justifying motive sometimes produces the phenomenon known as out-group favoritism, an acceptance of inferiority
+ among low-status groups and a positive image of relatively higher status groups. Thus, the notion that individuals are
+ simultaneously supporters and victims of the system-instilled norms is a central idea in system justification theory.
+ Additionally, the passive ease of supporting the current structure, when compared to the potential price (material,
+ social, psychological) of acting out against the status quo, leads to a shared environment in which the existing social,
+ economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred. Alternatives to the status quo tend to be disparaged, and
+ inequality tends to perpetuate.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9e05a25-ac09-407d-8aee-f54a04decf0b"), // STATUS_QUO_BIAS
+ new Guid("b1cc861b-f445-450b-9bdf-e9d222abdb4e"), // IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("bf8f304d-2e8e-4a90-a9c5-7bd56f6058a6"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Belief Perseverance
+ Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that
+ firmly contradicts it. Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, belief perseverance is consistent with
+ the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner. Philosopher F.C.S. Schiller holds that belief
+ perseverance "deserves to rank among the fundamental 'laws' of nature".
+
+ If beliefs are strengthened after others attempt to present evidence debunking them, this is known as a backfire
+ effect. There are psychological mechanisms by which backfire effects could potentially occur, but the evidence on
+ this topic is mixed, and backfire effects are very rare in practice. A 2020 review of the scientific literature on
+ backfire effects found that there have been widespread failures to replicate their existence, even under conditions
+ that would be theoretically favorable to observing them.[8] Due to the lack of reproducibility, as of 2020 most
+ researchers believe that backfire effects are either unlikely to occur on the broader population level, or they
+ only occur in very specific circumstances, or they do not exist. For most people, corrections and fact-checking
+ are very unlikely to have a negative impact, and there is no specific group of people in which backfire effects
+ have been consistently observed.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ENDOWMENT_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Endowment Effect
+ In psychology and behavioral economics, the endowment effect, also known as divestiture aversion, is the finding
+ that people are more likely to retain an object they own than acquire that same object when they do not own it.
+ The endowment theory can be defined as "an application of prospect theory positing that loss aversion associated
+ with ownership explains observed exchange asymmetries."
+
+ This is typically illustrated in two ways. In a valuation paradigm, people's maximum willingness to pay (WTP) to
+ acquire an object is typically lower than the least amount they are willing to accept (WTA) to give up that same
+ object when they own it—even when there is no cause for attachment, or even if the item was only obtained minutes
+ ago. In an exchange paradigm, people given a good are reluctant to trade it for another good of similar value.
+ For example, participants first given a pen of equal expected value to that of a coffee mug were generally unwilling
+ to trade, whilst participants first given the coffee mug were also unwilling to trade it for the pen.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4f61b9fa-146a-4b6e-b075-f0ba2ee0d9d0"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Processing Difficulty Effect
+ That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("a4027640-1f52-4ff1-ae13-bd14a30d5b8d"), // LEVELS_OF_PROCESSING_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other_memory_biases",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("656c78c9-d75a-4c07-a80d-f3a5026f859c"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Pseudocertainty Effect
+ In prospect theory, the pseudocertainty effect is the tendency for people to perceive an outcome as certain while it is
+ actually uncertain in multi-stage decision making. The evaluation of the certainty of the outcome in a previous stage of
+ decisions is disregarded when selecting an option in subsequent stages. Not to be confused with certainty effect, the
+ pseudocertainty effect was discovered from an attempt at providing a normative use of decision theory for the certainty
+ effect by relaxing the cancellation rule.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocertainty_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias CERTAINTY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ac7d745c-d66e-4886-87d7-ddaba349d4e8"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Certainty Effect
+ The certainty effect is the psychological effect resulting from the reduction of probability from certain to probable
+ (Tversky & Kahneman 1986). It is an idea introduced in prospect theory. Normally a reduction in the probability of
+ winning a reward (e.g., a reduction from 80% to 20% in the chance of winning a reward) creates a psychological effect
+ such as displeasure to individuals, which leads to the perception of loss from the original probability thus favoring
+ a risk-averse decision. However, the same reduction results in a larger psychological effect when it is done from
+ certainty than from uncertainty.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DISPOSITION_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4ecb0187-b2e2-446f-87e2-1e32f269e497"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Disposition Effect
+ The disposition effect is an anomaly discovered in behavioral finance. It relates to the tendency of investors to sell
+ assets that have increased in value, while keeping assets that have dropped in value. Hersh Shefrin and Meir Statman
+ identified and named the effect in their 1985 paper, which found that people dislike losing significantly more than they
+ enjoy winning. The disposition effect has been described as one of the foremost vigorous actualities around individual
+ investors because investors will hold stocks that have lost value yet sell stocks that have gained value.
+
+ In 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky traced the cause of the disposition effect to the so-called "prospect theory".
+ The prospect theory proposes that when an individual is presented with two equal choices, one having possible gains and
+ the other with possible losses, the individual is more likely to opt for the former choice even though both would yield
+ the same economic result.
+
+ The disposition effect can be minimized by means of a mental approach called "hedonic framing". For example, individuals
+ can try to force themselves to think of a single large gain as a number of smaller gains, to think of a number of smaller
+ losses as a single large loss, to think of the combination of a major gain and a minor loss as a net minor gain, and, in
+ the case of a combined major loss and minor gain, to think of the two separately. In a similar manner, investors show a
+ reversed disposition effect when they are framed to think of their investment as progress towards a specific investment
+ goal rather than a generic investment.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ZERO_RISK_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("77553998-bfa7-450e-acd9-586a55064302"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Zero-Risk Bias
+ Zero-risk bias is a tendency to prefer the complete elimination of risk in a sub-part over alternatives with greater
+ overall risk reduction. It often manifests in cases where decision makers address problems concerning health, safety,
+ and the environment. Its effect on decision making has been observed in surveys presenting hypothetical scenarios.
+
+ Zero-risk bias is based on the way people feel better if a risk is eliminated instead of being merely mitigated.
+ Scientists identified a zero-risk bias in responses to a questionnaire about a hypothetical cleanup scenario involving
+ two hazardous sites X and Y, with X causing 8 cases of cancer annually and Y causing 4 cases annually. The respondents
+ ranked three cleanup approaches: two options each reduced the total number of cancer cases by 6, while the third reduced
+ the number by 5 and eliminated the cases at site Y. While the latter option featured the worst reduction overall, 42% of
+ the respondents ranked it better than at least one of the other options. This conclusion resembled one from an earlier
+ economics study that found people were willing to pay high costs to eliminate a risk. It has a normative justification
+ since once risk is eliminated, people would have less to worry about and such removal of worry also has utility. It is
+ also driven by our preference for winning much more than losing as well as the old instead of the new way, all of which
+ cloud the way the world is viewed.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias UNIT_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ff43a9e2-7dde-47ca-a3ef-5a9c2d3117c9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Unit Bias
+ The standard suggested amount of consumption (e.g., food serving size) is perceived to be appropriate, and a person would
+ consume it all even if it is too much for this particular person.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IKEA_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("565616dc-ed84-42af-b9cc-6fa666cc5d66"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # IKEA Effect
+ The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they
+ partially created. The name refers to Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA, which sells many items
+ of furniture that require assembly. A 2011 study found that subjects were willing to pay 63% more for furniture
+ they had assembled themselves than for equivalent pre-assembled items.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT
+ new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"), // ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias LOSS_AVERSION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Loss Aversion
+ In cognitive science and behavioral economics, loss aversion refers to a cognitive bias in which the same situation
+ is perceived as worse if it is framed as a loss, rather than a gain. It should not be confused with risk aversion,
+ which describes the rational behavior of valuing an uncertain outcome at less than its expected value.
+
+ ## Application
+ In marketing, the use of trial periods and rebates tries to take advantage of the buyer's tendency to value the good
+ more after the buyer incorporates it in the status quo. In past behavioral economics studies, users participate up
+ until the threat of loss equals any incurred gains. Methods established by Botond Kőszegi and Matthew Rabin in
+ experimental economics illustrates the role of expectation, wherein an individual's belief about an outcome can
+ create an instance of loss aversion, whether or not a tangible change of state has occurred.
+
+ Whether a transaction is framed as a loss or as a gain is important to this calculation. The same change in price
+ framed differently, for example as a $5 discount or as a $5 surcharge avoided, has a significant effect on
+ consumer behavior. Although traditional economists consider this "endowment effect", and all other effects of
+ loss aversion, to be completely irrational, it is important to the fields of marketing and behavioral finance.
+ Users in behavioral and experimental economics studies decided to cease participation in iterative money-making
+ games when the threat of loss was close to the expenditure of effort, even when the user stood to further their
+ gains. Loss aversion coupled with myopia has been shown to explain macroeconomic phenomena, such as the equity
+ premium puzzle. Loss aversion to kinship is an explanation for aversion to inheritance tax.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), // ENDOWMENT_EFFECT
+ new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias GENERATION_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("af442ab1-ffc5-404c-9ee8-3497fe6992ec"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Generation Effect
+ The generation effect is a phenomenon whereby information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own
+ mind rather than simply read. Researchers have struggled to fully explain why generated information is better
+ recalled than read information, as no single explanation has been comprehensive.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Escalation of Commitment
+ Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative
+ outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continue the behavior instead of altering course.
+ The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.
+
+ Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of
+ increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost")
+ despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit.
+
+ In sociology, irrational escalation of commitment or commitment bias describe similar behaviors. The phenomenon
+ and the sentiment underlying them are reflected in such proverbial images as "throwing good money after bad",
+ or "In for a penny, in for a pound", or "It's never the wrong time to make the right decision", or "If you find
+ yourself in a hole, stop digging."
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("9a2d58f5-bbf1-4b34-8e1b-f9bcd8814f05"), // SUNK_COST_FALLACY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SUNK_COST_FALLACY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("9a2d58f5-bbf1-4b34-8e1b-f9bcd8814f05"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Sunk Cost Fallacy
+ The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.
+ The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in
+ something the harder it becomes to abandon it.
+
+ Example: R&D costs. Once spent, such costs are sunk and should have no effect on future pricing decisions. So a
+ pharmaceutical company's attempt to justify high prices because of the need to recoup R&D expenses is fallacious.
+ The company will charge market prices whether R&D had cost one dollar or one million dollars. However, R&D costs,
+ and the ability to recoup those costs, are a factor in deciding whether to spend the money on R&D. It’s important
+ to distinguish that while justifying high prices on past R&D is a fallacy, raising prices in order to finance
+ future R&D is not.
+
+ Counterpoint: It is sometimes not that simple. In a broad range of situations, it is rational for people to condition
+ behavior on sunk costs, because of informational content, reputational concerns, or financial and time constraints.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"), // ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("0c18a8bd-5e5f-4cf0-a90e-47dd7a421035"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Identifiable Victim Effect
+ The identifiable victim effect is the tendency of individuals to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable
+ person ("victim") is observed under hardship, as compared to a large, vaguely defined group with the same need.
+
+ The identifiable victim effect has two components. People are more inclined to help an identified victim than an
+ unidentified one, and people are more inclined to help a single identified victim than a group of identified victims.
+ Although helping an identified victim may be commendable, the identifiable victim effect is considered a cognitive
+ bias. From a consequentialist point of view, the cognitive error is the failure to offer N times as much help to N
+ unidentified victims.
+
+ The identifiable victim effect has a mirror image that is sometimes called the identifiable perpetrator effect.
+ Research has shown that individuals are more inclined to mete out punishment, even at their own expense, when they
+ are punishing a specific, identified perpetrator.
+
+ The conceptualization of the identifiable victim effect as it is known today is commonly attributed to American
+ economist Thomas Schelling. He wrote that harm to a particular person invokes "anxiety and sentiment, guilt and awe,
+ responsibility and religion, [but]…most of this awesomeness disappears when we deal with statistical death".
+
+ Historical figures from Joseph Stalin to Mother Teresa are credited with statements that epitomize the identifiable
+ victim effect. The remark "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic" is widely, although probably
+ incorrectly, attributed to Stalin. The remark "If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I
+ will," is attributed to Mother Teresa.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifiable_victim_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("2d57f4d6-e599-4738-812a-c12cef877779"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Appeal to Novelty
+ The appeal to novelty (also called appeal to modernity or argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which one
+ prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern.
+ In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument is not in itself a valid
+ argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation
+ assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to
+ be worst-case.
+
+ Investigation may prove these claims to be true, but it is a fallacy to prematurely conclude this only from the
+ general claim that all novelty is good.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("19a483d0-2c8f-486f-bf9e-619d0df4c916"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hyperbolic Discounting
+ Given two similar rewards, humans show a preference for one that arrives in a more prompt timeframe. Humans are said
+ to discount the value of the later reward, by a factor that increases with the length of the delay. In the financial
+ world, this process is normally modeled in the form of exponential discounting, a time-consistent model of discounting.
+ Many psychological studies have since demonstrated deviations in instinctive preference from the constant discount rate
+ assumed in exponential discounting. Hyperbolic discounting is an alternative mathematical model that agrees more closely
+ with these findings.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias RISK_COMPENSATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("10fcc295-02b6-4dbf-b655-f5bcff3c1ca7"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Risk Compensation
+ Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to perceived
+ levels of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.
+ Although usually small in comparison to the fundamental benefits of safety interventions, it may result in a lower
+ net benefit than expected or even higher risks.
+
+ By way of example, it has been observed that motorists drove closer to the vehicle in front when the vehicles were
+ fitted with anti-lock brakes. There is also evidence that the risk compensation phenomenon could explain the failure
+ of condom distribution programs to reverse HIV prevalence and that condoms may foster disinhibition, with people
+ engaging in risky sex both with and without condoms.
+
+ By contrast, shared space is an urban street design method which consciously aims to increase the level of perceived
+ risk and uncertainty, thereby slowing traffic and reducing the number and seriousness of injuries.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("cff2c74d-a160-4a90-b0b2-10f145b804cb"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Effort Justification
+ Effort justification is an idea and paradigm in social psychology stemming from Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive
+ dissonance. Effort justification is a person's tendency to attribute the value of an outcome they put effort into
+ achieving as greater than the objective value of the outcome.
+
+ Cognitive dissonance theory explains changes in people's attitudes or beliefs as the result of an attempt to reduce a
+ dissonance (discrepancy) between contradicting ideas or cognitions. In the case of effort justification, there is a
+ dissonance between the amount of effort exerted into achieving a goal or completing a task (high effort equalling high
+ "cost") and the subjective reward for that effort (lower than was expected for such an effort). By adjusting and increasing
+ one's attitude or subjective value of the goal, this dissonance is resolved.
+
+ One of the first and most classic examples of effort justification is Aronson and Mills's study. A group of young women
+ who volunteered to join a discussion group on the topic of the psychology of sex were asked to do a small reading test
+ to make sure they were not too embarrassed to talk about sexual-related topics with others. The mild-embarrassment
+ condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of sex-related words such as prostitute or virgin. The
+ severe-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of highly sexual words (e.g. fuck, cock) and
+ to read two vivid descriptions of sexual activity taken from contemporary novels. All subjects then listened to a
+ recording of a discussion about sexual behavior in animals which was dull and unappealing. When asked to rate the
+ group and its members, control and mild-embarrassment groups did not differ, but the severe-embarrassment group's
+ ratings were significantly higher. This group, whose initiation process was more difficult (embarrassment equalling
+ effort), had to increase their subjective value of the discussion group to resolve the dissonance.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("565616dc-ed84-42af-b9cc-6fa666cc5d66"), // IKEA_EFFECT
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("4727839d-64c5-4ba4-b044-6b09f14d5a34"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Trait Ascription Bias
+ Trait ascription bias is the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality,
+ behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable in their personal traits across different situations.
+ More specifically, it is a tendency to describe one's own behaviour in terms of situational factors while preferring
+ to describe another's behaviour by ascribing fixed dispositions to their personality. This may occur because peoples'
+ own internal states are more readily observable and available to them than those of others.
+
+ This attributional bias intuitively plays a role in the formation and maintenance of stereotypes and prejudice,
+ combined with the negativity effect. However, trait ascription and trait-based models of personality remain
+ contentious in modern psychology and social science research. Trait ascription bias refers to the situational
+ and dispositional evaluation and description of personality traits on a personal level. A similar bias on the
+ group level is called the outgroup homogeneity bias.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
+ new Guid("2cb8514a-c4a2-4cf6-aed7-72d7870ace84"), // BARNUM_EFFECT
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("a44a6bcf-b2b8-47f1-84e0-d740af56aa1e"), // ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
+ new Guid("5ae6f7ec-3be2-47ad-ad75-0ed114f97fe0"), // NAÏVE_CYNICISM
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_ascription_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5a973490-c19a-43c7-8a01-a26e0d05f275"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Defensive Attribution Hypothesis
+ The defensive attribution hypothesis (or bias, theory, or simply defensive attribution) is a social
+ psychological term where an observer attributes the causes for a mishap to minimize their fear of
+ being a victim or a cause in a similar situation. The attributions of blame are negatively correlated
+ to similarities between the observer and the people involved in the mishap, i.e. more responsibility
+ is attributed to the people involved who are dissimilar to the observer. Assigning responsibility
+ allows the observer to believe that the mishap was controllable and thus preventable.
+
+ A defensive attribution may also be used to protect the person's self-esteem if, despite everything,
+ the mishap does occur, because blame can be assigned to the "other" (person or situation). The use of
+ defensive attributions is considered a cognitive bias because an individual will change their beliefs
+ about a situation based upon their motivations or desires rather than the factual characteristics of
+ the situation.
+
+ ## Sexual assault
+ Researchers examining sexual assault have consistently found that male participants blamed rapists less
+ than female participants did, and that male participants blamed the rape victims more than female
+ participants did. These findings support Shaver's similarity-responsibility hypothesis: male participants,
+ who are personally similar to (male) rapists, blame rapists less than female participants who are dissimilar
+ to rapists. On the other hand, female participants, who are personally similar to (female) rape victims,
+ blame the victims less than male participants.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"), // ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_attribution_hypothesis",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Fundamental Attribution Error
+ In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (FAE) [a] is a cognitive attribution bias in which
+ observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing
+ dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to
+ their personality (e.g., he is late because he's selfish) and underattribute them to the situation or context
+ (e.g., he is late because he got stuck in traffic). Although personality traits and predispositions are considered
+ to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their
+ effects.
+
+ The group attribution error (GAE) is identical to the fundamental attribution error, where the bias is shown between
+ members of different groups rather than different individuals. The ultimate attribution error is a derivative of the
+ FAE and GAE relating to the actions of groups, with an additional layer of self-justification relating to whether
+ the action of an individual is representative of the wider group.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("577e79e5-0a53-4c4c-a2ea-d039870bfbb9"), // GROUP_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7fce783e-2120-4aad-9805-2c2a2b937b7d"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Illusion of Control
+ The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events. It was named
+ by U.S. psychologist Ellen Langer and is thought to influence gambling behavior and belief in the paranormal.
+
+ It is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events, for example, when someone feels a
+ sense of control over outcomes that they demonstrably do not influence. The illusion might arise because a person
+ lacks direct introspective insight into whether they are in control of events. This has been called the introspection
+ illusion. Instead, they may judge their degree of control by a process which is often unreliable. As a result, they see
+ themselves as responsible for events to which there is little or no causal link. For example, in one study, college
+ students were in a virtual reality setting to treat a fear of heights using an elevator. Those who were told that they
+ had control, yet had none, felt as though they had as much control as those who actually did have control over the
+ elevator. Those who were led to believe they did not have control said they felt as though they had little control.
+
+ The illusion is more common in familiar situations, and in situations where the person knows the desired outcome.
+ Feedback that emphasizes success rather than failure can increase the effect, while feedback that emphasizes failure
+ can decrease or reverse the effect. The illusion is weaker for depressed individuals and is stronger when individuals
+ have an emotional need to control the outcome. The illusion is strengthened by stressful and competitive situations,
+ including financial trading. Although people are likely to overestimate their control when the situations are heavily
+ chance-determined, they also tend to underestimate their control when they actually have it, which runs contrary to
+ some theories of the illusion and its adaptiveness. People also showed a higher illusion of control when they were
+ allowed to become familiar with a task through practice trials, make their choice before the event happens like
+ with throwing dice, and when they can make their choice rather than have it made for them with the same odds.
+ People are more likely to show control when they have more answers right at the beginning than at the end,
+ even when the people had the same number of correct answers.
+
+ Being in a position of power enhances the illusion of control, which may lead to overreach in risk taking.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Actor-Observer Bias
+ Actor–observer asymmetry (also actor–observer bias) is a bias one makes when forming attributions about the behavior
+ of others or themselves. When people judge their own behavior, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the
+ particular situation than to their personality. However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person,
+ they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than to situational factors.
+
+ Sometimes the actor–observer asymmetry is defined as the fundamental attribution error, which is when people tend to
+ explain behavior on the internal, personal characteristics rather than the external factors or situational influences.
+
+ The specific hypothesis of an actor–observer asymmetry in attribution was originally proposed by Edward Jones and
+ Richard Nisbett, where they said that "actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to stimuli inherent
+ in the situation, while observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor". Supported by
+ initial evidence, the hypothesis was long held as firmly established. However, a meta-analysis of all the published
+ tests of the hypothesis between 1971 and 2004 found that there was no actor–observer asymmetry of the sort that had
+ been previously proposed. The author of the study interpreted this result not so much as proof that actors and observers
+ explained behavior exactly the same way but as evidence that the original hypothesis was fundamentally flawed in the way
+ it framed people's explanations of behavior as attributions to either stable dispositions or the situation.
+
+ Considerations of actor–observer differences can be found in other disciplines as well, such as philosophy (e.g.
+ privileged access, incorrigibility), management studies, artificial intelligence, semiotics, anthropology, and
+ political science.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SELF_SERVING_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Self-Serving Bias
+ A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance
+ self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals
+ tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals
+ reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and
+ failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their
+ self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but
+ they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam
+ to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability
+ or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are
+ made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.
+
+ Both motivational processes (i.e. self-enhancement, self-presentation) and cognitive processes (i.e. locus of control,
+ self-esteem) influence the self-serving bias. There are both cross-cultural (i.e. individualistic and collectivistic
+ culture differences) and special clinical population (i.e. depression) considerations within the bias. Much of the
+ research on the self-serving bias has used participant self-reports of attribution based on experimental manipulation
+ of task outcomes or in naturalistic situations. Some more modern research, however, has shifted focus to physiological
+ manipulations, such as emotional inducement and neural activation, in an attempt to better understand the biological
+ mechanisms that contribute to the self-serving bias.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT
+ new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
+ new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"), // OPTIMISM_BIAS
+ new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
+ new Guid("e36f82b7-43dd-4073-99d9-c33073007185"), // MORAL_CREDENTIAL_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias OPTIMISM_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Optimism Bias
+ Optimism bias or optimistic bias is a cognitive bias that causes someone to believe that they themselves
+ are less likely to experience a negative event. It is also known as unrealistic optimism or comparative optimism.
+
+ Optimism bias is common and transcends gender, ethnicity, nationality, and age. However, autistic people are less
+ susceptible to this kind of biases. Optimistic biases have also reported in other animals, such as rats and birds.
+
+ Four factors can cause a person to be optimistically biased: their desired end state, their cognitive mechanisms,
+ the information they have about themselves versus others, and overall mood. The optimistic bias is seen in a number
+ of situations. For example: people believing that they are less at risk of being a crime victim, smokers believing
+ that they are less likely to contract lung cancer or disease than other smokers, first-time bungee jumpers believing
+ that they are less at risk of an injury than other jumpers, or traders who think they are less exposed to potential
+ losses in the markets.
+
+ Although the optimism bias occurs for both positive events (such as believing oneself to be more financially successful
+ than others) and negative events (such as being less likely to have a drinking problem), there is more research and
+ evidence suggesting that the bias is stronger for negative events (the valence effect). Different consequences result
+ from these two types of events: positive events often lead to feelings of well being and self-esteem, while negative
+ events lead to consequences involving more risk, such as engaging in risky behaviors and not taking precautionary
+ measures for safety.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("67041978-ac8e-4254-ae2c-509e7301619f"), // PESSIMISM_BIAS
+ new Guid("7fce783e-2120-4aad-9805-2c2a2b937b7d"), // ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
+ new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
+ new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias EGOCENTRIC_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("953746dc-ce10-4e3b-8f9e-9246de63f531"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Egocentric Bias
+ Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of
+ oneself than reality. It appears to be the result of the psychological need to satisfy one's ego and to be
+ advantageous for memory consolidation. Research has shown that experiences, ideas, and beliefs are more easily
+ recalled when they match one's own, causing an egocentric outlook. Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly first identified
+ this cognitive bias in their 1979 paper, "Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution". Egocentric bias is
+ referred to by most psychologists as a general umbrella term under which other related phenomena fall.
+
+ The effects of egocentric bias can differ based on personal characteristics, such as age and the number of
+ languages one speaks. Thus far, there have been many studies focusing on specific implications of egocentric
+ bias in different contexts. Research on collaborative group tasks have emphasized that people view their own
+ contributions differently than they view that of others. Other areas of research have been aimed at studying
+ how mental health patients display egocentric bias, and at the relationship between egocentric bias and voter
+ distribution. These types of studies surrounding egocentric bias usually involve written or verbal questionnaires,
+ based on the subject's personal life or their decision in various hypothetical scenarios.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Dunning-Kruger Effect
+ The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate
+ their abilities. It was first described by Justin Kruger and David Dunning in 1999. Some researchers also include the
+ opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger
+ effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific
+ overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias HARD_EASY_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("07f0c252-1d97-4207-8000-8e4d8800fb42"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Hard-Easy Effect
+ The hard–easy effect is a cognitive bias that manifests itself as a tendency to overestimate the probability of
+ one's success at a task perceived as hard, and to underestimate the likelihood of one's success at a task perceived
+ as easy. The hard-easy effect takes place, for example, when individuals exhibit a degree of underconfidence in
+ answering relatively easy questions and a degree of overconfidence in answering relatively difficult questions.
+ "Hard tasks tend to produce overconfidence but worse-than-average perceptions," reported Katherine A. Burson,
+ Richard P. Larrick, and Jack B. Soll in a 2005 study, "whereas easy tasks tend to produce underconfidence and
+ better-than-average effects."
+
+ The hard-easy effect falls under the umbrella of "social comparison theory", which was originally formulated by
+ Leon Festinger in 1954. Festinger argued that individuals are driven to evaluate their own opinions and abilities
+ accurately, and social comparison theory explains how individuals carry out those evaluations by comparing themselves
+ to others.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard%E2%80%93easy_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("bc0dc6d3-5115-4def-91ae-a38aebed185e"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # False Consensus Effect
+ In psychology, the false consensus effect, also known as consensus bias, is a pervasive cognitive bias that causes
+ people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing
+ circumstances". In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions
+ are relatively widespread through the general population.
+
+ This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem (overconfidence effect). It can be derived from
+ a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment. This bias is especially prevalent in group
+ settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since
+ the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that
+ everybody thinks the same way. The false-consensus effect is not restricted to cases where people believe that
+ their values are shared by the majority, but it still manifests as an overestimate of the extent of their belief.
+
+ Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who
+ do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the
+ availability heuristic, self-serving bias, and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying
+ factors. The bias may also result, at least in part, from non-social stimulus-reward associations. Maintenance
+ of this cognitive bias may be related to the tendency to make decisions with relatively little information.
+ When faced with uncertainty and a limited sample from which to make decisions, people often "project"
+ themselves onto the situation. When this personal knowledge is used as input to make generalizations,
+ it often results in the false sense of being part of the majority.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [
+ new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
+ new Guid("d749ce96-32f3-4c3d-86f7-26ff4edabe4a"), // AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC
+ new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
+ new Guid("f0ad095e-8e9c-4bfb-855e-11fb5dd58cea"), // NAÏVE_REALISM
+ ],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("b9186d75-3362-4dd4-a3ec-4345a04161c9"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Third-Person Effect
+ The third-person effect hypothesis predicts that people tend to perceive that mass media messages have a greater
+ effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases. The third-person effect manifests itself through
+ an individual's overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an
+ underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves.
+
+ These types of perceptions stem from a self-motivated social desirability (not feeling influenced by mass messages
+ promotes self-esteem), a social-distance corollary (choosing to dissociate oneself from the others who may be
+ influenced), and a perceived exposure to a message (others choose to be influenced by persuasive communication).
+ Other names for the effect are "Third-person perception" and "Web Third-person effect". From 2015, the effect is
+ named "Web Third-person effect" when it is verified in social media, media websites, blogs and in websites in general.
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ private static readonly Bias SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS = new()
+ {
+ Id = new Guid("a378b725-8bf9-4213-a875-326426d5c759"),
+ Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+ Description =
+ """
+ # Social-Desirability Bias
+ In social science research, social-desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey
+ respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of
+ over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious
+ problem with conducting research with self-reports. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average
+ tendencies as well as individual differences.
+
+ Topics where socially desirable responding (SDR) is of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personality,
+ sexual behavior, and drug use. When confronted with the question "How often do you masturbate?," for example,
+ respondents may be pressured by a social taboo against masturbation, and either under-report the frequency or
+ avoid answering the question. Therefore, the mean rates of masturbation derived from self-report surveys are
+ likely to be severely underestimated.
+
+ When confronted with the question, "Do you use drugs/illicit substances?" the respondent may be influenced by
+ the fact that controlled substances, including the more commonly used marijuana, are generally illegal.
+ Respondents may feel pressured to deny any drug use or rationalize it, e.g. "I only smoke marijuana when my
+ friends are around." The bias can also influence reports of number of sexual partners. In fact, the bias
+ may operate in opposite directions for different subgroups: Whereas men tend to inflate the numbers, women
+ tend to underestimate theirs. In either case, the mean reports from both groups are likely to be distorted
+ by social desirability bias.
+
+ Other topics that are sensitive to social-desirability bias include:
+
+ - Self-reported personality traits will correlate strongly with social desirability bias[2]
+ - Personal income and earnings, often inflated when low and deflated when high
+ - Feelings of low self-worth and/or powerlessness, often denied
+ - Excretory functions, often approached uncomfortably, if discussed at all
+ - Compliance with medicinal-dosing schedules, often inflated
+ - Family planning, including use of contraceptives and abortion[3][4]
+ - Religion, often either avoided or uncomfortably approached[5]
+ - Patriotism, either inflated or, if denied, done so with a fear of other party's judgment
+ - Bigotry and intolerance, often denied, even if it exists within the responder
+ - Intellectual achievements, often inflated
+ - Physical appearance, either inflated or deflated
+ - Acts of real or imagined physical violence, often denied
+ - Indicators of charity or "benevolence," often inflated
+ - Illegal acts, often denied
+ - Voter turnout
+ """,
+
+ Related = [],
+ Links =
+ [
+ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias",
+ ],
+ };
+
+ #endregion
+
+ public static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary
+ {
+ { SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS },
+ { THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT.Id, THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT },
+ { FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT.Id, FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT },
+ { HARD_EASY_EFFECT.Id, HARD_EASY_EFFECT },
+ { DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT.Id, DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT },
+ { EGOCENTRIC_BIAS.Id, EGOCENTRIC_BIAS },
+ { OPTIMISM_BIAS.Id, OPTIMISM_BIAS },
+ { SELF_SERVING_BIAS.Id, SELF_SERVING_BIAS },
+ { ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS.Id, ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS },
+ { ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL.Id, ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL },
+ { FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR.Id, FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR },
+ { DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS.Id, DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS },
+ { TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS.Id, TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS },
+ { EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION.Id, EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION },
+ { RISK_COMPENSATION.Id, RISK_COMPENSATION },
+ { HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING.Id, HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING },
+ { APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY.Id, APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY },
+ { IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT.Id, IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT },
+ { SUNK_COST_FALLACY.Id, SUNK_COST_FALLACY },
+ { ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT.Id, ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT },
+ { GENERATION_EFFECT.Id, GENERATION_EFFECT },
+ { LOSS_AVERSION.Id, LOSS_AVERSION },
+ { IKEA_EFFECT.Id, IKEA_EFFECT },
+ { UNIT_BIAS.Id, UNIT_BIAS },
+ { ZERO_RISK_BIAS.Id, ZERO_RISK_BIAS },
+ { DISPOSITION_EFFECT.Id, DISPOSITION_EFFECT },
+ { CERTAINTY_EFFECT.Id, CERTAINTY_EFFECT },
+ { PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT.Id, PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT },
+ { PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT.Id, PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT },
+ { ENDOWMENT_EFFECT.Id, ENDOWMENT_EFFECT },
+ { BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE.Id, BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE },
+ { SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION.Id, SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION },
+ { REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY.Id, REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY },
+ { REACTANCE.Id, REACTANCE },
+ { DECOY_EFFECT.Id, DECOY_EFFECT },
+ { SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS },
+ { STATUS_QUO_BIAS.Id, STATUS_QUO_BIAS },
+ { AMBIGUITY_EFFECT.Id, AMBIGUITY_EFFECT },
+ { INFORMATION_BIAS.Id, INFORMATION_BIAS },
+ { BELIEF_BIAS.Id, BELIEF_BIAS },
+ { RHYME_AS_REASON_EFFECT.Id, RHYME_AS_REASON_EFFECT },
+ { PARKINSONS_LAW_OF_TRIVIALITY.Id, PARKINSONS_LAW_OF_TRIVIALITY },
+ { DELMORE_EFFECT.Id, DELMORE_EFFECT },
+ { CONJUNCTION_FALLACY.Id, CONJUNCTION_FALLACY },
+ { OCCAMS_RAZOR.Id, OCCAMS_RAZOR },
+ { LESS_IS_BETTER_EFFECT.Id, LESS_IS_BETTER_EFFECT},
+ { HINDSIGHT_BIAS.Id, HINDSIGHT_BIAS },
+ { OUTCOME_BIAS.Id, OUTCOME_BIAS },
+ { MORAL_LUCK.Id, MORAL_LUCK },
+ { DECLINISM.Id, DECLINISM },
+ { PESSIMISM_BIAS.Id, PESSIMISM_BIAS },
+ { PLANNING_FALLACY.Id, PLANNING_FALLACY },
+ { TIME_SAVING_BIAS.Id, TIME_SAVING_BIAS },
+ { PRO_INNOVATION_BIAS.Id, PRO_INNOVATION_BIAS },
+ { IMPACT_BIAS.Id, IMPACT_BIAS },
+ { PROJECTION_BIAS.Id, PROJECTION_BIAS },
+ { ROSY_RETROSPECTION.Id, ROSY_RETROSPECTION },
+ { TELESCOPING_EFFECT.Id, TELESCOPING_EFFECT },
+ { ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT.Id, ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT },
+ { ILLUSION_OF_EXTERNAL_AGENCY.Id, ILLUSION_OF_EXTERNAL_AGENCY },
+ { EXTRINSIC_INCENTIVE_BIAS.Id, EXTRINSIC_INCENTIVE_BIAS },
+ { SPOTLIGHT_EFFECT.Id, SPOTLIGHT_EFFECT },
+ { CURSE_OF_KNOWLEDGE.Id, CURSE_OF_KNOWLEDGE },
+ { ILLUSION_OF_TRANSPARENCY.Id, ILLUSION_OF_TRANSPARENCY },
+ { MILLERS_LAW.Id, MILLERS_LAW },
+ { DENOMINATION_EFFECT.Id, DENOMINATION_EFFECT },
+ { SUBADDITIVITY_EFFECT.Id, SUBADDITIVITY_EFFECT },
+ { SURVIVORSHIP_BIAS.Id, SURVIVORSHIP_BIAS },
+ { ZERO_SUM_BIAS.Id, ZERO_SUM_BIAS },
+ { NORMALCY_BIAS.Id, NORMALCY_BIAS },
+ { APPEAL_TO_POSSIBILITY.Id, APPEAL_TO_POSSIBILITY },
+ { MENTAL_ACCOUNTING.Id, MENTAL_ACCOUNTING },
+ { WELL_TRAVELLED_ROAD_EFFECT.Id, WELL_TRAVELLED_ROAD_EFFECT },
+ { REACTIVE_DEVALUATION.Id, REACTIVE_DEVALUATION },
+ { NOT_INVENTED_HERE.Id, NOT_INVENTED_HERE },
+ { POSITIVITY_EFFECT.Id, POSITIVITY_EFFECT },
+ { CHEERLEADER_EFFECT.Id, CHEERLEADER_EFFECT },
+ { CROSS_RACE_EFFECT.Id, CROSS_RACE_EFFECT },
+ { OUT_GROUP_HOMOGENEITY.Id, OUT_GROUP_HOMOGENEITY },
+ { PLACEBO_EFFECT.Id, PLACEBO_EFFECT },
+ { BANDWAGON_EFFECT.Id, BANDWAGON_EFFECT },
+ { AUTOMATION_BIAS.Id, AUTOMATION_BIAS },
+ { AUTHORITY_BIAS.Id, AUTHORITY_BIAS },
+ { ARGUMENT_FROM_FALLACY.Id, ARGUMENT_FROM_FALLACY },
+ { JUST_WORLD_FALLACY.Id, JUST_WORLD_FALLACY },
+ { MORAL_CREDENTIAL_EFFECT.Id, MORAL_CREDENTIAL_EFFECT },
+ { FUNCTIONAL_FIXEDNESS.Id, FUNCTIONAL_FIXEDNESS },
+ { ESSENTIALISM.Id, ESSENTIALISM },
+ { STEREOTYPING.Id, STEREOTYPING },
+ { IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM.Id, IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM },
+ { ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR.Id, ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR },
+ { HOSTILE_ATTRIBUTION_BIAS.Id, HOSTILE_ATTRIBUTION_BIAS },
+ { ATTRIBUTION_BIAS.Id, ATTRIBUTION_BIAS },
+ { GROUP_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR.Id, GROUP_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR },
+ { ANTHROPOMORPHISM.Id, ANTHROPOMORPHISM },
+ { APOPHENIA.Id, APOPHENIA },
+ { PAREIDOLIA.Id, PAREIDOLIA },
+ { ILLUSORY_CORRELATION.Id, ILLUSORY_CORRELATION },
+ { HOT_HAND_FALLACY.Id, HOT_HAND_FALLACY },
+ { GAMBLERS_FALLACY.Id, GAMBLERS_FALLACY },
+ { RECENCY_ILLUSION.Id, RECENCY_ILLUSION },
+ { MASKED_MAN_FALLACY.Id, MASKED_MAN_FALLACY },
+ { WYSIATI.Id, WYSIATI },
+ { ILLUSION_OF_VALIDITY.Id, ILLUSION_OF_VALIDITY },
+ { ANECDOTAL_FALLACY.Id, ANECDOTAL_FALLACY },
+ { NEGLECT_OF_PROBABILITY.Id, NEGLECT_OF_PROBABILITY },
+ { INSENSITIVITY_TO_SAMPLE_SIZE.Id, INSENSITIVITY_TO_SAMPLE_SIZE },
+ { CLUSTERING_ILLUSION.Id, CLUSTERING_ILLUSION },
+ { CONFABULATION.Id, CONFABULATION },
+ { NAÏVE_REALISM.Id, NAÏVE_REALISM },
+ { NAÏVE_CYNICISM.Id, NAÏVE_CYNICISM },
+ { OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT.Id, OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT },
+ { ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY.Id, ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY },
+ { INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION.Id, INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION },
+ { BIAS_BLIND_SPOT.Id, BIAS_BLIND_SPOT },
+ { SEMMELWEIS_REFLEX.Id, SEMMELWEIS_REFLEX },
+ { CONTINUED_INFLUENCE_EFFECT.Id, CONTINUED_INFLUENCE_EFFECT },
+ { BARNUM_EFFECT.Id, BARNUM_EFFECT },
+ { SUBJECTIVE_VALIDATION.Id, SUBJECTIVE_VALIDATION },
+ { OSTRICH_EFFECT.Id, OSTRICH_EFFECT },
+ { OBSERVER_EXPECTANCY_EFFECT.Id, OBSERVER_EXPECTANCY_EFFECT },
+ { SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION.Id, SELECTIVE_PERCEPTION },
+ { CHOICE_SUPPORTIVE_BIAS.Id, CHOICE_SUPPORTIVE_BIAS },
+ { CONGRUENCE_BIAS.Id, CONGRUENCE_BIAS },
+ { CONFIRMATION_BIAS.Id, CONFIRMATION_BIAS },
+ { WEBER_FECHNER_LAW.Id, WEBER_FECHNER_LAW },
+ { MONEY_ILLUSION.Id, MONEY_ILLUSION },
+ { FRAMING_EFFECT.Id, FRAMING_EFFECT },
+ { FOCUSING_EFFECT.Id, FOCUSING_EFFECT },
+ { DISTINCTION_BIAS.Id, DISTINCTION_BIAS },
+ { CONTRAST_EFFECT.Id, CONTRAST_EFFECT },
+ { CONSERVATISM_BIAS.Id, CONSERVATISM_BIAS },
+ { ANCHORING_EFFECT.Id, ANCHORING_EFFECT },
+ { SELF_REFERENCE_EFFECT.Id, SELF_REFERENCE_EFFECT },
+ { PICTURE_SUPERIORITY_EFFECT.Id, PICTURE_SUPERIORITY_EFFECT },
+ { VON_RESTORFF_EFFECT.Id, VON_RESTORFF_EFFECT },
+ { HUMOUR_EFFECT.Id, HUMOUR_EFFECT },
+ { BIZARRENESS_EFFECT.Id, BIZARRENESS_EFFECT },
+ { BASE_RATE_FALLACY.Id, BASE_RATE_FALLACY },
+ { OMISSION_BIAS.Id, OMISSION_BIAS},
+ { HOT_COLD_EMPATHY_GAP.Id, HOT_COLD_EMPATHY_GAP },
+ { FREQUENCY_ILLUSION.Id, FREQUENCY_ILLUSION },
+ { CONTEXT_DEPENDENT_MEMORY.Id, CONTEXT_DEPENDENT_MEMORY },
+ { STATE_DEPENDENT_MEMORY.Id, STATE_DEPENDENT_MEMORY },
+ { CUE_DEPENDENT_FORGETTING.Id, CUE_DEPENDENT_FORGETTING },
+ { CONTEXT_EFFECT.Id, CONTEXT_EFFECT },
+ { MERE_EXPOSURE_EFFECT.Id, MERE_EXPOSURE_EFFECT },
+ { ILLUSORY_TRUTH_EFFECT.Id, ILLUSORY_TRUTH_EFFECT },
+ { ATTENTIONAL_BIAS.Id, ATTENTIONAL_BIAS },
+ { AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC.Id, AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC },
+ { MODALITY_EFFECT.Id, MODALITY_EFFECT },
+ { MEMORY_INHIBITION.Id, MEMORY_INHIBITION },
+ { PRIMACY_EFFECT.Id, PRIMACY_EFFECT },
+ { RECENCY_EFFECT.Id, RECENCY_EFFECT },
+ { PART_LIST_CUING.Id, PART_LIST_CUING },
+ { SERIAL_POSITION_EFFECT.Id, SERIAL_POSITION_EFFECT },
+ { SUFFIX_EFFECT.Id, SUFFIX_EFFECT },
+ { LEVELS_OF_PROCESSING_EFFECT.Id, LEVELS_OF_PROCESSING_EFFECT },
+ { ABSENT_MINDEDNESS.Id, ABSENT_MINDEDNESS },
+ { TESTING_EFFECT.Id, TESTING_EFFECT },
+ { NEXT_IN_LINE_EFFECT.Id, NEXT_IN_LINE_EFFECT },
+ { GOOGLE_EFFECT.Id, GOOGLE_EFFECT },
+ { TIP_OF_THE_TONGUE_PHENOMENON.Id, TIP_OF_THE_TONGUE_PHENOMENON },
+ { SUGGESTIBILITY.Id, SUGGESTIBILITY },
+ { SPACING_EFFECT.Id, SPACING_EFFECT },
+ { MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY.Id, MISATTRIBUTION_OF_MEMORY },
+ { LIST_LENGTH_EFFECT.Id, LIST_LENGTH_EFFECT },
+ { MISINFORMATION_EFFECT.Id, MISINFORMATION_EFFECT },
+ { LEVELING_AND_SHARPENING.Id, LEVELING_AND_SHARPENING },
+ { PEAK_END_RULE.Id, PEAK_END_RULE },
+ { FADING_AFFECT_BIAS.Id, FADING_AFFECT_BIAS },
+ { NEGATIVITY_BIAS.Id, NEGATIVITY_BIAS },
+ { PREJUDICE.Id, PREJUDICE },
+ { IMPLICIT_STEREOTYPES.Id, IMPLICIT_STEREOTYPES },
+ { IMPLICIT_ASSOCIATIONS.Id, IMPLICIT_ASSOCIATIONS },
+ };
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategory.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategory.cs
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bcf5121
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategory.cs
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+namespace AIStudio.Settings.DataModel;
+
+public enum BiasCategory
+{
+ NONE,
+
+ WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER,
+ TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION,
+ NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING,
+ NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategoryExtensions.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategoryExtensions.cs
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4398c9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCategoryExtensions.cs
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+namespace AIStudio.Settings.DataModel;
+
+public static class BiasCategoryExtensions
+{
+ public static string ToName(this BiasCategory biasCategory) => biasCategory switch
+ {
+ BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER => "What should we remember?",
+ BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION => "Too much information",
+ BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING => "Not enough meaning",
+ BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST => "Need to act fast",
+
+ _ => "Unknown category",
+ };
+
+ public static string GetThoughts(this BiasCategory biasCategory) => biasCategory switch
+ {
+ BiasCategory.WHAT_SHOULD_WE_REMEMBER =>
+ """
+ - We store memories differently based on how they were experienced
+ - We reduce events and lists to their key elements
+ - We discard specifics to form generalities
+ - We edit and reinforce some memories after the fact
+ """,
+
+ BiasCategory.TOO_MUCH_INFORMATION =>
+ """
+ - We notice things already primed in memory or repeated often
+ - Bizarre, funny, visually-striking, or anthropomorphic things stick out more than non-bizarre/unfunny things
+ - We notice when something has changed
+ - We are drawn to details that confirm our own existing beliefs
+ - We notice flaws in others more easily than we notice flaws in ourselves
+ """,
+
+ BiasCategory.NOT_ENOUGH_MEANING =>
+ """
+ - We tend to find stories and patterns even when looking at sparse data
+ - We fill in characteristics from stereotypes, generalities, and prior histories
+ - We imagine things and people we’re familiar with or fond of as better
+ - We simplify probabilities and numbers to make them easier to think about
+ - We project our current mindset and assumptions onto the past and future
+ - We think we know what other people are thinking
+ """,
+
+ BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST =>
+ """
+ - We favor simple-looking options and complete information over complex, ambiguous options
+ - To avoid mistakes, we aim to preserve autonomy and group status, and avoid irreversible decisions
+ - To get things done, we tend to complete things we’ve invested time & energy in
+ - To stay focused, we favor the immediate, relatable thing in front of us
+ - To act, we must be confident we can make an impact and feel what we do is important
+ """,
+
+ _ => string.Empty,
+ };
+}
\ No newline at end of file