The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational

18azlo1delz86jpg

I believe to participate in discussions (on-line or in person) with other professionals is essential to one’s growth. Often when involved in these discussions I run across some who just don’t present a rational position. There are many innocent reasons for this irrational very human flaw. Try not to be victim to these cognitive biases. As they say ‘the first step is to realise that you may be a victim of your own biases.” Self-reflection is difficult. Good luck with the growth! Here’s a thought-provoking article I stumbled across on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Enjoy.

The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational

Be Careful What You Believe! Bad Science is BAD!

ck4wisusvgsuwz4u8byd

Be cautions of “opinion based” discoveries with “bias” research to back it up!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-international-project-raises-questions-about-the-validity-of-psychology-research/

Not all evidence can be trusted. Being a SKEPTIC is a good thing.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

How we tell the difference between reality and fantasy – Verification

quote-with-insufficient-data-it-is-easy-to-go-wrong-carl-sagan-263897Any one who has studied the history of science knows that almost every great step therein has been made by the “anticipation of Nature,” that is, by the invention of hypotheses, which, though verifiable, often had very little foundation to start with; and, not unfrequently, in spite of a long career of usefulness, turned out to be wholly erroneous in the long run.— Thomas Henry Huxley

Evidence VS Emotional Based Knowledge

bad science

Just an observation – For those who require independent evidence (whenever possible) to support their knowledge base they don’t often get emotional when folks disagree with them. They are curious about what evidence they may not be aware of. They ask a lot of questions (even if that frustrates others). These folks tend to be very open to the possibilities. Always open to any and all new evidence. Of course junk evidence isn’t given much weight. Most scientist would easily fit into this category, so would “serious professionals.” Tainted evidence isn’t really evidence at all. Snake oil salesmen are doing very well these days especially in the internet age.

Faith, emotional and non-critical thinking based folks don’t like being challenged very much by the illogical nature of their beliefs. They tend to react emotionally when challenged. Often attacking the challenger of their beliefs. This is all too apparent in the anti-science movements (anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-fossil fuels, etc.). It’s important to be a critical thinker and to be a proud skeptical thinker which really only means that evidence is valued by you.

There’s a perfect quote to describe the value of being open minded but there should be limits to what should be considered. This quote by the late and great Carl Sagan who had a great deal to say about evidence VS faith and the failing of all information being automatically valuable.

Great advice if one chooses to take it! :O)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/try-fool-yourself-alan-quilley-crsp?trk=mp-reader-card

A few more words about Safety I and Safety II. BE CAREFUL!

Describing “Good” management and comparing it to “Bad” management using an overwhelming amount of evidence from the masters (Maslow, Skinner, McGregor, Deming, Daniels et al) is pretty straightforward. There is a very good reason the PDCA/PDSA process works… it’s because it’s based on the Scientific Method. It’s based on the classic use of hypothesis, experimentation and evidence which has moved human knowledge forward for Centuries.

This isn’t a movement from one to another…it’s a natural evolution for those who chose to listen to the masters. It’s somewhat apparent by what I’m seeing and the links I’ve read that the author has listened.

Rejecting what one THOUGHT they knew for what becomes evident by output evidence is good management. Those who decide to continue to believe in the Myths of Safety will pay the price of a delayed knowledge. They will continue to argue their points but the reality is if it worked…we would not be discussing this observational concept of Safety(Add a Number of Letter whatever floats your boat). There would be no need to.

http://www.predictivesolutions.com/safetycary/author/alan-quilley/

I wonder what most CEOs would think of their Safety Pros coming to them with “the secret to safety” and calling it Safety II. Probably a well-received as approaching a management team with “Management Secret II.” My advice is DON’T DO IT if you don’t want to look like a FOOL.