JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

What do cows drink? Your final answer may have been “water” but was “milk” the first thought that came into your head? If so, that’s an example of a mental shortcut that your brain took without you even knowing it.

This is a simple example of the ways in which our brains may fail us. The shortcuts our brains naturally take, along with many other logical fallacies, can have a negative impact in our professional and personal lives. To make better decisions, we need to understand how our mind takes shortcuts and how those shortcuts trick us into making bad decisions. If you understand how your mind works and when it fails you, you will make better decisions.

THE CORRELATION FALLACY

You own an ice cream shop and sales have tripled over the previous two months. This is great news for you as you are finally making a profit. Regrettably, drowning deaths in your town have also increased over that time period. You have recently received a complaint that showed that the more ice cream you sell, the more people are drowning. The person who brought up the complaint has evidence of the ice cream sales and the drownings to back this up. What would you say in response to this complaint to defend your ice cream shop and stay in business?

There are a few things at play here. The initial thought for many is that the complaint isn’t true and therefore we should try to prove that it isn’t true. We would want to say that, of course, our ice cream has nothing to do with people drowning. In fact, the information is true and we want to get away from our natural impulse to be defensive. In this case the two facts do have something to do with each other, as they are both more likely to happen in the same months of the year. This gets us thinking about causation and correlation. It’s not that more ice cream sales cause more drowning deaths, and more drowning deaths don’t cause more ice cream to be sold. The summer heat is actually the cause and driver of both of the events and they would each happen independently of one another. It’s important to analyze what is actually causing something to happen when you notice two new results and some people may assume that one is causing the other.

PREDICTING OUTCOMES

Flip a coin 5 times and it turns up heads each time. What do you think is the probability that it will turn up heads again on the next flip? Do you think it is: 
– More likely heads than tails
– Equally likely heads as tails
– More likely tails than heads

The question is an example of the gambler’s fallacy. The gambler’s fallacy is the mistaken assumption that past independent events have an influence on the likelihood of a future outcome. In this case, flipping five heads in a row has no impact on the outcome of the next flip.

SIMPLE MATH MISTAKES

A bat and ball cost $1.10 together, and the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. What is the cost of the ball? 

This is an example where your brain may quickly jump to an answer that seems obvious. Now go back and double-check your answer and take more than 10 seconds to think about it. Did you come up with a new response?

When most people see the question, they jump to the answer of ten cents when the correct answer is five cents. You see the dollar and the ten cents and quickly separate them making ten cents the “obvious” answer.

We often arrive at quick answers for good reasons in all types of situations. Coming to a quick answer isn’t the problem, the problem arises when we don’t revisit some of those snap decisions. It is functional for our brains to process information and make decisions quickly much of the time. Just not all of the time, and knowing when to pause and engage our brain more fully is key to making the best decisions. 

THE LIKELIHOOD SCENARIO

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and deeply concerned with social justice. Which is more likely:
1) Linda is a bank teller.
2) Linda is a volunteer for a political party and a bank teller.

If you chose the second option, you are in the majority, but, unfortunately, the majority of people are wrong in this case. The likelihood that Linda is both a bank teller and works for a political party must be less than the likelihood of her just being a bank teller.

This is a simple example of the ways in which our brains may fail us. The shortcuts our brains naturally take, along with many other logical fallacies, can have a negative impact in our professional and personal lives. To make better decisions, we need to understand how our mind takes shortcuts and how those shortcuts trick us into making bad decisions. If you understand how your mind works and when it fails you, you will make better decisions.

We are excited to announce a new workshop focused on decision making, drawing inspiration from the insights of numerous influential thinkers who have explored the intricacies of decision making and human behaviour. We have distilled this knowledge into a concise, engaging, and interactive 2-day workshop on Effective Decision Making. Learn more at https://www.sfhgroup.com/courses/effective-decision-making-workshop/