Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Monkey Business

Recommended Posts

I am amazed people miss that!  I had heard about this but not seen it in action.

Share this post


Link to post

I was amazed because I was expecting it (seen similar before) but so missed all else, even the score. Everything is much easier with 20/20 hindsight. 

Share this post


Link to post

This is due to cognitive biases ,Imagine looking a charts , looking for the obvious  , but missing important  information

Share this post


Link to post

That's right, it's often a case of seeing what we want to see rather than what is actually being played out, until it's to late. A bias should not mean discounting everything that doesn't fit, keep weighing the evidence and don't be too concerned if you need to change your bias, after all the market is going up and down all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it is about bias, that is a different actor on our minds.  No one looking at the video has a bias for not believing a guy in a gorilla suit exists or can exist in such a scene.  If everyone watched the video without trying to perform the task then everyone would spot the gorilla.  The issue this experiment is highlighting is that when we are focused on a stressful or difficult task (which is any kind of analysis) our brains automatically tune out extraneous factors.  When you are concentrating on driving in a high risk environment such as near a school you will often not hear what a person in the passenger seat says to you unless they shout a warning.  Our brains automatically tunes out things not relevant to the specific task at hand and as Kahneman said of this experiment, it shows "we can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness."  One thing I would agree to is that if we had a bias for something being irrelevant we would not incorporate it into our analysis but that is a separate issue. 

 

So what?  How can this realisation help us?  For me I try to do the following to identify the obvious I have neglected to spot in my analysis:

  1. Follow a set routine or methodology, which has a built in scenario generator and requires me to look at things I have neglected in the past (via a check list of sorts)
  2. Return to my analysis the next day and the next day cold as a third party might do - this one is hard to do in reality
  3. Ask others for their input, two heads are better than one, and many heads smooth out errors
  4. Learn from mistakes and build into checklist but don't dwell on them or you become fixated

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Topics
      12,429
    • Total Posts
      63,174
    • Total Members
      83,860
    Newest Member
    ichukx
    Joined 20/09/20 00:27
  • Posts

    • "Nobel Prize for Science winner Professor Levitt of Stanford - one of the few who called this thing correctly back in February - with a population fatality rate of 0.04 to 0.05%, largely regardless of lockdown Now calls it again - on how science has let us all down dreadfully:"   https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1277543603762585600/pu/vid/1280x720/iFYywrcFxG1CLAkO.mp4?tag=10
    • The reality, testing now up to 90,000 a day (many times greater than in March) = 'new' cases also up. If you came into contact with a cold or flu virus even months ago (and probably were asymptomatic) you would be a confirmed 'new' case. But new hospital admissions and new deaths are still negligible. Compare March with now on the chart. Second lockdown starting soon. you are being played
    • interesting that Schlossberg points to discipline and flexibility - which at first "sight" sounds like a trade-off
×
×