21 Mind Traps : The Ultimate Guide to your most common Thinking errors

You probably think you are in complete control  of your decisions and thoughts…. But how often are they guided by something else? Something you  don’t even notice occuring deep within your mind… Here are 21 cognitive mind traps, fallacies, biases and other phenomenon  that exist within your brain.

Strange things that are hard  wired into all human minds. You may go through your entire life or well  into adulthood completely unaware that you are carrying around these thinking errors and mental  shortcuts that influence your day-to-day thinking. You can’t turn them off or  delete them from your brain, But being one of the few people that can  notice when they arise in your mind and knowing situations they are likely  to act upon your decision making is one of the first steps to becoming a  more thoughtful and rational thinker.

This 2 part series is mainly inspired  by the works of Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his  amazing book “Thinking Fast and Slow”. Cognitive Dissonance A fox sneaked up to a vine. He stared intently  at the juicy, purple, overripe grapes.

He tried to get at the grapes, but they were too  high. Frustrated, he tried again. He launched himself upward, but came no closer to the  fruit.

He leapt for a third time, this time landing hard with a thud. Still no grapes. The  fox turned up his nose: “I don’t really care.

Only grapes that aren’t even ripe. Why would I  want sour grapes? He walked back into the forest.

This is one of Aesop’s fables and also  where we get the term “Sour grapes” from. The fox had 3 choices Get to the grapes Admit that he wasn’t smart and/or skilled enough to obtain the grapes Reinterpret the situation retrospectively. Or put simply, create a new belief that  is in conflict with the first belief.

When we choose option three, and we  have two held beliefs that are in conflict with one another, that is  an example of cognitive dissonance. If you interview for a job, but someone else gets  it. Instead of reasoning that the other person was better, you tell yourself that the job was no  good anyway, or that the interviewer was unfair.

When people can’t get what they want. They often  tell themselves it isn’t what they wanted anyway. You think all rich people are greedy  and evil… but you also want to be rich, the dissonance leads to discomfort, mental  stress and anxiety.

If the dissonance grows more intense it can lead to depression. If  you notice dissonance, you need to choose one. Because When it comes to cognitive  dissonance, as Rolf Dobelli says “You can play the clever fox all you want—but  you’ll never get the grapes that way.

” The Spotlight Effect You arrive 5 minutes late to the office and you  feel like everyone is judging you. It’s your first day at a gym and you feel like everyone is  watching you. You spill a small amount of sauce on your shirt and you feel so embarrassed because  you think the whole party is going to notice!

The spotlight effect is the phenomenon in which people tend to believe people are  observing them more than they are. People are seldom interested in you  and your actions as much as you think, so do yourself a favor, stop overestimating  how much people are observing you and reduce the anxiety that is probably just  the result of the spotlight effect. The Anchoring effect Whenever we have to guess something—Let’s say  the population of Russia - we use anchors.

Starting with something we know for sure to  be true, OK so it must be greater than 1, Must be less than 7 Billion and is  less than the population of China…. . We take these anchors and then we  explore the unfamiliar territory.

Unfortunately, we use anchors  when we don’t need to. Take a moment to pause and  look at these questions. Is the height of the tallest redwood  tree more or less than 1,200 feet?

What is your best guess about the  height of the tallest redwood? If we asked group A, these two questions,  and group B these 2 questions…. .

We would consistently get very different answers….  Because of the anchoring effect. But the anchoring effect doesn’t  only apply to numbers that appear informative such as in the tree  example, According to Kahneman “ …Anchors that are obviously random can be just  as effective as potentially informative anchors” An experiment was conducted on German judges. 

With an average of 15 years experience. Each judge was read a description  of a woman who had been shoplifting. Then asked to roll a pair of dice, which  were loaded to only add up to 3 or 9.

As soon as the dice stopped they were asked to  answer how long they would sentence this woman. The judges who rolled a 9, on  average gave her an 8 month sentence. The judges who rolled a 3, on  average gave her a 5 month sentence.

The Researchers found that the anchoring  effect was influencing their judgements. numerous other studies using arbitrary  numbers like the last digits of phone numbers or social security numbers  also confirmed our anchoring bias. In sales and negotiations, Anchors are being  used all the time, and there will be people who are willing and able to set up this mind trap  and exploit the anchoring effect against you.

The Car salesman setting a  high price from the start, so the price he actually wants to  get from you seems like a good deal. The $150 dollar dress at the front of the store, sets the anchor for the $50 dress  on sale at the back of the store. Online Stores, Salary negotiations and Real estate deals are all playgrounds  for the anchoring effect.

And it’s one of our most powerful  biases. You can’t turn it off, but you can remind yourself of your  vulnerability to it and try to proactively set your own mental anchors before going  into any sales or negotiation environment. “They have sent us the asking price for the  home, let’s not let this number influence our thinking.

Set it aside. Let’s perform our  own due diligence and arrive at our own number” “Our objective in this negotiation is to move  first and get them anchored to this number” The Halo Effect What do you think about Alan and Ben? Alan is intelligent--industrious--impulsive--critical--stubborn--envious Ben is envious -- stubborn -- critical  -- impulsive -- industrious --intelligent If you are like most people you see Alan  in a better light than you do Ben….

even though the traits mentioned are exactly the same. When it comes to the halo effect,  sequence matters. More weight is given to the first piece of information  we receive.

The first piece of information helps us quickly create a story of  the person or situation in our minds. Sure Alan, is stubborn and envious, but that is because he is intelligent  and wants to win in business. Yes, Ben is intelligent… but he uses  that intelligence in envious ways… The halo effect occurs when  a single, initial aspect of a person or thing determines and affects or  “outshines” how we see the full picture.

When you first start dating someone, both parties  in the relationship are on their best behavior. You start to develop a halo of positive thoughts  around this person. Small traits you dislike might begin to pop up but often go unnoticed  because “the halo”, the positive emotions and the initial information you gathered on this  person is blinding out any of the negatives.

The honeymoon phase of a relationship is often when  the Halo effect influences your judgment the most. If we learn that someone graduated  from a prestigious university, the halo effect will distort all other traits we  attribute to that person without any evidence. Bernie Maddof was the darling of Wall Street, a legendary investor.

The amazing returns and  reputation of his company were the Halo that made people also conclude his company must be  trustworthy. The Halo outshone the numbers that made no sense and the underlying fact he was  running the biggest Ponzi-Scheme in history. Numerous studies have shown that attractive  people are automatically perceived as nicer, more honest, and more intelligent.

The Halo Effect can also be found in schools.  If a student answers 2 essay questions and the teacher gives the first essay a high grade,  he/she is prone to subconsciously give that more weight and give the second essay a higher  grade also, and vice versa for low grades. In the work environment, the standard practice  of most meetings is to have open discussions on a topic, Daniel Kaheneman in the book  Thinking Fast and Slow, argues that it is better to gather independent judgments on  the topic from everyone in the group before the issue is discussed because far too often  the opinions of the first people to talk are given too much weight and influence the groups  input… especially if the boss speaks first.

Modern Research suggests that the old saying  “First impressions last” turns out to be true. After meeting someone for the first time, our judgment of that person can influence  us for a long time into the future. We jump to conclusions and our perception of  true characteristics is distorted by the halo effect.

To combat this, try to move beyond the  first appearance of someone or something and decorrelate error. Remember, your brain is trying  to help you by making the most complete story it can on the limited information it is provided,  the problem is that these “mental shortcut stories” we tell ourselves about a person  or thing are often inaccurate from reality. “He knows nothing about her personality, all he is going by is how good looking she  is, he is succumbing to the Halo Effect” “This new applicant graduated  from Harvard, she doesn’t have any experience in a similar position, but  I think we should interview her anyway” “Let’s gather ideas independently  on this topic before the meeting, I don’t want my ideas to influence the groups” Gambler’s fallacy Three times, a coin is flipped and lands  on heads each time.

Let's say that someone forces you to wager thousands of  dollars of your own money on the next toss. Would you bet on heads or  tails? If you think like most people, you will almost always choose tails,  although heads is equally likely.

But why? We believe in some kind of  balancing force in the Universe. If we asked people to choose  which sequence is more probable, most would pick the top sequence.

But  both sequences are equally probable. We generally underestimate the likelihood  of streaks occurring by chance. We are led to believe that something needs  to change due to the gambler's fallacy.

However there is no such balancing force,  the coin can not remember that heads was flipped 3 times in a row, the ball cannot  remember that it just landed on black. Casinos love the gambler’s fallacy because it  creates the illusion in the gambler’s mind that they can predict where “the balance” of  the dice or roulette wheel will go next. This fallacy can apply anywhere  there is a sequence of decisions.

That awkward feeling you get when  you’ve answered 5 C’s in a row of a multiple choice exam is this fallacy at work. A university of Chicago review found  Asylum judges were 19% less likely to approve an asylum seeker if they  had just approved the previous two. The same person applying for a loan was  more likely to get approved for a loan if the previous two applicants were  rejected and was more likely to be rejected if the previous two  applications were approved.

Similar findings were also  found with Baseball umpires. Take a closer look at the independent  and interdependent events around you. Independent events are not influenced  by balancing forces of nature.

The Contrast Effect If you see some leather seats for 3000  dollars, they may seem a little expensive. If you are buying an $80,000  dollar car on the other hand, the $3000 leather seat upgrade  seems almost like nothing. Research shows that people will walk an  extra 10 minutes if it means saving $10 on food.

However, nearly all wouldn't walk  ten minutes to save $10 on a $1,000 suit. It's easy to think something is attractive,  large, or expensive when it sits next to something ugly, small, or cheap. Absolute  judgments can be difficult to make.

Try to catch yourself the next  time you go shopping to see if your purchasing decisions are being  influenced by the Contrast effect. Confirmation Bias You have an existing belief about something.  You go in search of evidence that supports that belief, which further reinforces the belief. 

And you continue this cycle, and continue to reinforce the belief. If you come across evidence  that doesn’t support your belief, you filter the disconfirming evidence and your brain actively  “forgets” it after a short period of time. This is confirmation bias.

The tendency to interpret new information so  that it becomes compatible with our existing theories and beliefs. Our brains  are hardwired to maintain beliefs, not readily accept new ones. Because accepting  new beliefs is psychologically draining.

As opposed to the Scientific Method, where you  form a hypothesis or ask a question, Gather evidence and then test the hypothesis. This is  hard work! , and may entail some unpleasant truths.

For those reasons, most people prefer the  easier route which makes them feel good. Jon begins with a simple theory or belief. He turns to Google.

He subconsciously goes in search of the first information that confirms his  belief and ignores the rest. Philosophers of science would tell  us to try and refute the hypothesis. But Rarely do people actively try  to seek out disconfirming evidence .

To make matters worse, the biggest platforms  now tailor content to personal interests and browsing history, supercharging confirmation  bias on a mass scale. We find ourselves in communities of like-minded people,  also referred to as echo chambers, thereby reinforcing our convictions-and  the confirmation bias becomes stronger. The more you conform the facts to  fit your beliefs the narrower your perspective becomes, until that narrow  reality becomes all that you can see.

Confirmation bias is the  genesis of the “I’m always correct ego” …especially in political discourse. What planet are they living on? They must be living in an alternate reality?

! “I’m completely right about everything,  look at all the facts on my side…” As opposing perspectives become narrower,  discourse about facts that are being interpreted differently becomes nearly impossible because  both sides of an argument are seeing the evidence through the lens of their theories and only  looking for what confirms their existing beliefs. According to Daniel Kahneman, “A reliable way to make people believe  in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not  easily distinguished from truth.

” When people hear the same thing repeated enough  times, and facts may as well go out the window. Echo chambers are the flywheels for  frequent repetition and dissemination of ideas. The same ideas are shared, liked  and repeated and any new beliefs are quickly shut down.

All divergent thinking  and opinions begin to disappear. There is no way to eliminate confirmation Bias,  only ways to reduce its effect on you. First is to simply become aware this mind trap exists, if  time allows you to reflect, try to “Think Gray”, If you truly want to become an independent  thinker, you need to explore the gray areas and expand beyond the hive mind of the group. 

Get your information from a variety of sources and avoid being influenced into a belief because  it's what others are telling you to think or has been repeated enough times you accept it as truth.  Confirmation Bias is a perspective narrower, Widen your perspective, in most cases the objective  facts lie somewhere in between in the gray area. The Baader Meinhof Phenomenon You buy a certain brand of  car, and all of a sudden, you start seeing that car everywhere,  whereas you didn’t in the past.

When you learn a new word or new concept, suddenly  you start seeing it everywhere in your life. You start thinking, “Wow, this is weird,  How is it possible I’ve never seen this word in my life and now I have seen  it 3 times this week or why do I keep seeing those new shoes everywhere I go  now, they must be becoming so popular. The Baader Meinhof phenomenon is an  illusion in which, after noticing something for the first time, there is a  tendency to notice it more often.

It occurs when increased awareness of something creates  the illusion that it is appearing more often. This phenomenon is augmented by two  other biases, The Recency Effect, which inflates the importance of  recent stimuli, and confirmation bias, which confirms in your mind these strange  coincidences you think you are having and then perpetuates your search to keep confirming that  these coincidences must have some kind of meaning. Basically, our brains are master  pattern recognition machines that are always searching for meaning in data.

What is amazing are all the patterns  and stimuli flooding you every single day that your brain simply ignores  because it is not in your awareness. We only see the things we are looking out for. In reality you have most likely seen  that word or car a number of times, but your mind simply wasn’t  interested in noticing it.

Zeigarnik Effect We can almost always remember incomplete  tasks, but we easily forget completed tasks. To put simply, Incomplete tasks will stick  around in our memory longer than completed tasks. Originally it was believed that the only way to  prevent the Zeigarnik Effect from gnawing away at our thoughts was to complete the incomplete tasks,  however further research into the Zeigarnik Effect found that simply having or writing down a plan to  complete the task was enough to stop the effect.

So if you find yourself awake at night with  these incomplete tasks stressing you out, grab a pen and pad and write down a quick  plan to get the job done. Getting the tasks out of your head and onto paper combats this  effect and will give you more peace of mind. The Paradox of Choice At a supermarket, two experiments were conducted.

In the first experiment, 24 different types of jam were available to freely test  and buy for a discounted price. In the second experiment, only  6 different types of jam were available to freely test and  buy for a discounted price. The first experiment attracted  60% of shoppers and 3% bought jam.

The second experiment attracted 40%  of the shoppers and 30% bought jam. Even though more shoppers were initially  attracted to more variety…. .

. With less choices the supermarket was able  to sell 10x the amount of jam. This is the paradox of choice.

For most people  a large selection of any given product is seen as a net positive. But once the number  of choices increases past a threshold, our subjective state becomes negative and  leads to inner paralysis and decision fatigue. The paradox of choice can also be found  in modern day dating.

In the past, you would marry people you met locally.  Nowadays we have too many choices, and you may think that all that variety would  make it easier to find the perfect partner, but more optimal decisions can be made when  given a smaller amount of options to choose from. When faced with a small number of options,  people can easily weigh the pros and cons of each and be fairly satisfied  with whichever option they chose.

When faced with a large number of options, knowing  which option is best becomes more difficult, the more options there are, the more  chances there are of feeling regret. With More options , the more you feel  the need to compare. The attractive features of the alternatives, diminish  the satisfaction in your final choice.

Even if we have made an excellent  decision, the opportunity costs of the other options subtract from the  overall satisfaction of our choice. Too many choices also often leads to people not making any choice and giving  up on the endeavor altogether.