Cognitive biases potentially distorting global modelling of crises

Misleading Modelling of Global Crises (Part #4)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The following is slightly adapted from a section on Future blindness and the deaf effect as cognitive biases -- a section of a discussion of Group of 7 Dwarfs: Future-blind and Warning-deaf (2018). Global modelling of crises could be understood as a vital tool in alleviating such "future blindness". However it could be asked whether global modelling initiatives are themselves vulnerable to "future blindness" to an unexplored degree.

In a quest for insight into "future blindness" it is somewhat extraordinary to note the far greater proportion of references to the future of blindness and to blindness in the future -- notably given the eventual possibility of enabling the blind to see. Especially interesting therefore is the brief checklist by Morne Mostert (Future Blindness: an index of bias for leaders, University of Stellenbosch, 15 October 2015) and the thesis of Arno Nuijten (Deaf Effect for Risk Warnings A Causal Examination applied to Information Systems Projects. Erasmus University Repository, 2012).

Reference to information systems is a reminder of the extent in which global society is now readily defined as a knowledge-based information society. Arguably the Group of Seven (G7) has responsibilities for society understood as a global information system -- or would make that claim. The focus on the "deaf effect" in institutional information projects is also a reminder of the focus for which Stafford Beer has been renowned (Brain of the Firm, 1981). How indeed is the "global brain" to be rendered appropriately attentive to the future? What are the implications of Beer's subsequent work on viable system theory?

Cognitive biases: are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics. It is unclear whether they have been a focus of attention with respect to the Group of Seven or the "international community". As noted by Wikipedia with respect to cognitive biases, although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them. Some are effects of information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), termed heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive ("cold") bias, such as mental noise, or motivational ("hot") bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects can be present at the same time.

There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person. Wikipedia clusters the biases as follows:

• Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases (111 biases)
• Social biases (28 biases)
• Memory errors and biases (49 biases)

Future blindness: The following is an adaptation of Mostert's "index of bias" for leadership, most notably supplemented with links to relevant literature. Seemingly the list necessarily encompasses many of the biases which feature in Nuijten's study of the "deaf effect" with respect to recognition and acknowledgement of warning signals. The checklist of 30 raises valuable questions in relation to any "cognitive dwarfism" potentially characteristic of the Group of Seven.

The literature indicates other efforts to cluster biases in the range 25-30:

• P. Croskerry: The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them (Academic Medicine, 78, 2003, 8, pp. 775-780), indicating that researchers have identified more than 30 cognitive biases, but most are believed to operate without conscious awareness, making it unrealistic to ask physicians which biases influence their judgment, how often, with which patients, and whether those biases lead them toward suboptimal decisions.
• Rory Fryer: The behavioural link between economics and marketing (25 October 2017), indicating that there are about 25-30 cognitive biases that play the largest part in behaviour and all have different relevance dependent on the context of the situation. 

Other authors produce clusters of 20:

• Jennifer M Wood: 20 Cognitive Biases That Affect Your Decisions (Mental Floss, 17 September 2015)
• Patrick Allan: This Graphic Explains 20 Cognitive Biases That Affect Your Decision-Making (LifeHacker, 16 September 2015)

Some authors reduce the cognitive biases of significance to an even smaller number::

• 15 Cognitive Biases that Prevent Us From Thinking Rationally (Reflected, 26 March 2014)
• 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational (IO9, September 2009)
• 12 Cognitive Biases that Lead Hiring Managers to Make Bad Decisions (Business Insider, 26 November 2013)
• 10 Cognitive Biases that Mess up your Daily Decisions (Economic Times, 4 September 2015)
• 10 Cognitive Biases that Distort your Thinking (VeryWellMind, 23 November 2017)

For Chris Weller: The 5 Biggest Biases That Affect Decision-Making (NeuroLeadership Institute, 9 April 2019):

• Similarity Bias: We prefer what is like us over what is different
• Expedience Bias: We prefer to act quickly rather than take time
• Experience Bias: We take our perception to be the objective truth
• Distance Bias: We prefer what's closer over what's farther away
• Safety Bias: We protect against loss more than we seek out gain

Cognitive Bias Codex: The cognitive biases indicated by Wikipedia are accompanied by the following configuration of 180+ biases (below left) designed by John Manoogian III -- incorporating the majority listed there. Centered on the depiction of a human brain, the configuration raises the question as to how this pattern might be taken into account in the design of any global model. Of particular interest, in the light of the extensive role envisaged for artificial intelligence, is the extent to which such biases may be inadvertently embodied in algorithms with implications for governance.

As an exercise towards a coherent memorable representation, the larger set of cognitive biases can be tentatively configured as follows (centre and right), necessarily raising the question of how they may be clustered and interrelated in any such mapping.

Representations of Cognitive Bias Codex (view enlargements in separate browser windows)
Cognitive Bias Codex: design by John Manoogian III categories and descriptions; implementation by Buster Benson	Animation of tentative mapping of biases on 180 vertices of truncated truncated icosahedron	Animation of tentative mapping of clusters of biases on 20 faces of icosahedron
An Extension of the work of John Manoogian by Brian Morrissette [CC BY-SA 4.0 ], from Wikimedia Commons	Animations prepared using Stella Polyhedron Navigator

Comprehension challenges of complexity: The very question as to "how many" biases merit recognition is a reminder that there are constraints on human comprehension, reinforced by preferences, as discussed separately (Comprehension of Numbers Challenging Global Civilization: number games people play for survival, 2014). The explores the matter through the following sections:

Cognitive bias reinforced via the media: Much has been made of media bias, whether on the part of the mainstream media or various social media. This is readily understood in terms of information warfare and memetic warfare. This is notably evident on how problems are reframed to expose or protect particular strategies and the bodies promoting them, as discussed separately (Vital Collective Learning from Biased Media Coverage: acquiring vigilance to deceptive strategies used in mugging the world, 2014). The latter explores the following aspects:

Information and memetic diseases: An alternative to use of "warfare", as a framing metaphor for the cultivation of biases, is the use of "disease" -- potentially as an analogue to biochemical warfare. This approach is discussed separately (Memetic and Information Diseases in a Knowledge Society: speculations towards the development of cures and preventive measures, 2008) in terms of the following aspects:

Understood as "diseases", the memetic implications can be explored as an analogue to lifestyle diseases (Cognitive Implications of Lifestyle Diseases of Rich and Poor: transforming personal entanglement with the natural environment, 2010).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]