The Art of Thinking Clearly

by Rolf Dobelli

In daily life, because triumph is made more visible than failure, you systematically overestimate your chances of succeeding.

Survivorship bias means this: People systematically overestimate their chances of success. Guard against it by frequently visiting the graves of once-promising projects, investments, and careers. It is a sad walk but one that should clear your mind.

In conclusion: Be wary when you are encouraged to strive for certain things—be it abs of steel, immaculate looks, a higher income, a long life, a particular demeanor, or happiness. You might fall prey to the swimmer’s body illusion. Before you decide to take the plunge, look in the mirror—and be honest about what you see.

In conclusion: When it comes to pattern recognition, we are oversensitive. Regain your skepticism. If you think you have discovered a pattern, first consider it pure chance. If it seems too good to be true, find a mathematician and have the data tested statistically. And if the crispy parts of your pancake start to look a lot like Jesus’s face, ask yourself: If he really wants to reveal himself, why doesn’t he do it in Times Square or on CNN?

Social proof, sometimes roughly termed the “herd instinct,” dictates that individuals feel they are behaving correctly when they act the same as other people. In other words, the more people who follow a certain idea, the better (truer) we deem the idea to be. And the more people who display a certain behavior, the more appropriate this behavior is judged by others. This is, of course, absurd.

The sunk cost fallacy is most dangerous when we have invested a lot of time, money, energy, or love in something. This investment becomes a reason to carry on, even if we are dealing with a lost cause. The more we invest, the greater the sunk costs are, and the greater the urge to continue becomes.

Both of these stories epitomize the contrast effect: We judge something to be beautiful, expensive, or large if we have something ugly, cheap, or small in front of us. We have difficulty with absolute judgments.

The availability bias says this: We create a picture of the world using the examples that most easily come to mind. This is idiotic, of course, because in reality, things don’t happen more frequently just because we can conceive of them more easily.

What is clear is that people first used stories to explain the world, before they began to think scientifically, making mythology older than philosophy. This has led to the story bias.

there are two types of knowledge. First, we have real knowledge. We see it in people who have committed a large amount of time and effort to understanding a topic. The second type is chauffeur knowledge—knowledge from people who have learned to put on a show.

True experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not know.

The illusion of control is the tendency to believe that we can influence something over which we have absolutely no sway.

People respond to incentives by doing what is in their best interests.

We lack an intuitive grasp of probability. The proper term for this is neglect of probability, and it leads to errors in decision making. We invest in start-ups because the potential profit makes dollar signs flash before our eyes, but we forget (or are too lazy) to investigate the slim chances of new businesses actually achieving such growth. Similarly, following extensive media coverage of a plane crash, we cancel flights without really considering the minuscule probability of crashing (which, of course, remains the same before and after such a disaster).

inductive thinking, the inclination to draw universal certainties from individual observations.

In short: We attribute success to ourselves and failures to external factors. This is the self-serving bias.

Use these scientifically rubber-stamped pointers to make better, brighter decisions: (a) Avoid negative things that you cannot grow accustomed to, such as commuting, noise, or chronic stress. (b) Expect only short-term happiness from material things, such as cars, houses, lottery winnings, bonuses, and prizes. (c) Aim for as much free time and autonomy as possible since long-lasting positive effects generally come from what you actively do.

The introduction of “now” causes us to make inconsistent decisions. Science calls this phenomenon hyperbolic discounting. Put plainly: The closer a reward is, the higher our “emotional interest rate” rises and the more we are willing to give up in exchange for it.

After all the comparing, considering, and choosing, you are exhausted. Science calls this decision fatigue.

Science has a name for this phenomenon: motivation crowding. When people do something for well-meaning, nonmonetary reasons—out of the goodness of their hearts, so to speak—payments throw a wrench into the works. Financial reward erodes any other motivations.

Both of these are manifestations of the same phenomenon, the twaddle tendency. Here, reams of words are used to disguise intellectual laziness, stupidity, or underdeveloped ideas. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

“If you have nothing to say, say nothing.” Simplicity is the zenith of a long, arduous journey, not the starting point.

This effect is called “stage migration” or the Will Rogers phenomenon, named after an American comedian from Oklahoma. He is said to have joked that Oklahomans who pack up and move to California raise both states’ average IQ.

Borges’s map is the extreme case of the information bias, the delusion that more information guarantees better decisions.

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.”

John and Mark are victims of effort justification. When you put a lot of energy into a task, you tend to overvalue the result.

Science labels this tendency the Forer effect (or the “Barnum effect”). The Forer effect explains why the pseudosciences work so well—astrology, astrotherapy, the study of handwriting, biorhythm analysis, palmistry, tarot card readings, and séances with the dead. What’s behind the Forer effect? First, the majority of statements in Forer’s passage are so general that they relate to everyone: “Sometimes you seriously doubt your actions.” Who doesn’t? Second, we tend to accept flattering statements that don’t apply to us: “You are proud of your independent thinking.” Obviously! Who sees himself or herself as a mindless follower? Third, the so-called feature-positive effect plays a part: The text contains no negative statements; it states only what we are, even though the absence of characteristics is an equally important part of a person’s makeup. Fourth, the father of all the fallacies, the confirmation bias: We accept whatever corresponds to our self-image and unconsciously filter everything else out. What remains is a coherent portrait.

The belief that reflection leads to truth or accuracy is called the introspection illusion. This is more than sophistry. Because we are so confident of our beliefs, we experience three reactions when someone fails to share our views. Response 1: Assumption of ignorance. The other party clearly lacks the necessary information. If he knew what you know, he would be of the same opinion. Political activists think this way: They believe they can win others over through enlightenment. Reaction 2: Assumption of idiocy. The other person has the necessary information, but his mind is underdeveloped. He cannot draw the obvious conclusions. In other words, he’s a moron. This reaction is particularly popular with bureaucrats who want to protect “stupid” consumers from themselves. Response 3: Assumption of malice. Your counterpart has the necessary information—he even understands the debate—but he is deliberately confrontational. He has evil intentions. This is how many religious leaders and followers treat disbelievers: If they don’t agree, they must be servants of the devil!

We are obsessed with having as many irons as possible in the fire, ruling nothing out, and being open to everything. However, this can easily destroy success. We must learn to close doors.

the sleeper effect. To date, the best explanation is that, in our memories, the source of the argument fades faster than the argument. In other words, your brain quickly forgets where the information came from (e.g., from the Department of Propaganda). Meanwhile, the message itself (i.e., war is necessary and noble) fades only slowly or even endures. Therefore, any knowledge that stems from an untrustworthy source gains credibility over time.

I realized social comparison bias had kicked in—that is, the tendency to withhold assistance to people who might outdo you, even if you look like a fool in the long run.

I was guilty of the not-invented-here syndrome (NIH syndrome), which fools us into thinking anything we create ourselves is unbeatable. NIH syndrome causes you to fall in love with your own ideas. This is valid not only for fish sauces, but for all kinds of solutions, business ideas, and inventions.

We frequently overestimate unanimity with others, believing that everyone else thinks and feels exactly like we do. This fallacy is called the false-consensus effect.

By subconsciously adjusting past views to fit present ones, we avoid any embarrassing proof of our fallibility. It’s a clever coping strategy because no matter how tough we are, admitting mistakes is an emotionally difficult task.

Salience refers to a prominent feature, a stand-out attribute, a particularity, something that catches your eye. The salience effect ensures that outstanding features receive much more attention than they deserve.

In short, what exists means a lot more than what is missing. Science calls this the feature-positive effect.