THINK DIFFERENTLY

How To Spot Confirmation Bias With Computational Thinking

Binary Thought System: The two modes of thinking

In an uncertain world people seek to be right in order to make sense of things, a concept that psychologists argue is a basic need (Maslow).

It’s true, People strive to be correct and do so by looking for evidence that confirms they are correct, sometimes with depressing or undesired results.

This is known as Confirmation Bias and we all behave like this, automatically, without realizing it unless we have an acute awareness of course.

In part, because it’s easier to see where new pieces fit into a picture we are working on (or want), rather than imagining a whole new picture. It protects the vision we have of ourselves as accurate, right-thinking, consistent and conscientious beings who know what’s the right thing to do.

Many Executives, Business Owners, and Entrepreneurs are aware that biases can at times distort reasoning in decision making. Confirmation bias leads people to ignore the evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions. Anchoring causes them to weigh one piece of information heavily in making decisions; whereas loss aversion makes them too cautious.

Emotional Intelligence is the guiding light that can counteract such detractors. Developing an acute awareness of the existence of Confirmation bias, the risk it poses is crucial to managing outcomes more effectively.

Binary Thought System

According to Daniel Kahneman, there are two modes of thinking, intuitive and reflective. In intuitive, System one, thinking, feelings, intentions, associations, and impressions for action flow effortlessly. This system produces a constant representation of the world around us, enabling the basics like walking. In this state we’re not consciously focusing on how to do such things, we just do them.

“Intelligence is not only the ability to reason; it is also the ability to find relevant material in memory and to deploy attention when needed.” — Daniel Kahneman

System two, on the other hand, described by Kahneman as “thinking slow”, is deliberate and takes effort (Kahneman, 2012). This occurs when we learn to drive or swim for instance. That said, once mastered they become part of System One overtime — mastery.

Notably, both systems are continuously active, System two is typically just monitoring things in the background, only mobilized when the stakes are high, when we detect an error or when reasoning is required. Most of the time System one determines our thoughts and as a result, influences our actions and emotions.

Our visual system and associative memory are important aspects of System One, designed to produce a single coherent interpretation of what’s going on in the world around us. In addition to visual cues and memories, it also comprises of— goals, anxieties and an array of other inputs.

So System One makes sense of inputs to develop a narrative that suppresses alternative stories. By making up contextual stories, we need to pause and be aware of the potential impact, if led astray.

Cognitive bias is a good example, cognitive failures blind us to the fact that they’re happening. As a result, we almost never catch ourselves in the act of making intuitive errors and experience doesn’t help us to recognize them any better.

The inability to sense that we’ve made a mistake is a key to understanding why we easily accept our intuitive thinking at face value, after all, it’s effortless. It also explains that when we become aware of the existence of biases, we’re not overly enthusiastic about eliminating them in ourselves. A weakness in any Business.

Computational Thinking in Practice

The good news is that there’s hope for us flawed human-beings, particularly when we move from the individual to the collective, from the ‘decision-maker’ to a ‘collective decision-making’ process in a group, team or organization.

This holds true because in this type of environment most decisions are influenced by a gathering of people, and decision-makers turn their ability to spot biases in others’ thinking, albeit to their own advantage. We may not be great at controlling our own intuition, but we can apply rational thought to detect faults in others, thus improving the outcome i.e. System Two thinking weeds out System One errors.

This is the type of strategy that Startups must adopt. For example, when a team member suggests an idea, the coherence, and trust within the team dynamic invites others to critique until a consensus is reached, a process encouraged through regular engagement and diversity.

One such example occurred in relation to the ‘Burger’ (Icon)/ ‘Menu’ (Word) choice in App design. Throughout much of the project, the team adopted the “Menu’ option, due to research conducted. From the statistical evidence, it was clear that more people (non-tech) responded to the word ‘Menu’ as opposed to the ‘burger’ icon, as much as a 20% difference.

That said, if research (the Data) is not used or ignored and dominant team members are of the opinion that the ‘Burger’ (Icon) is the way to go, using examples to back up their hypothesis, this is Confirmation Bias at work.

Final Thoughts

The ‘Burger-Menu’ challenge above is recognized as Confirmation Bias if a team chooses to ignore research Data available. Then again, there can be some logic behind such a decision:

1. Right Fit — The ‘Burger’ might be a better fit than the word ‘Menu’ with respect to brand innovation and evolution.

2. Future Proof — In time the ‘Burger’ will visually represent a word much in the way that an ‘Exit’ sign does today (in a building) offline.

3. Diversity — As with 2. above, an image or an icon has become the international language, recognized across the globe. This coupled with the fact that visually impaired and disabled people adopt signs, icons, and images much more than they do words.

It’s wise to employ strategies that diminish the impact, negative or otherwise, of Confirmation Bias. However, Confirmation Bias can ignore future implications, outlined above, due to visionary timing (Burger vs.Menu).

Computational Thinking awareness is undoubtedly a useful guide, but it can conflict with Innovation.

How?

Think of Marconi (Telephone), Edison (Light bulb) and Jobs (Apple). All examples of those who ignored conformance and logical thinking to conceive, build and deliver ‘Game-Changing’ technology.

“When discussing Jobs’ ability to bend the truth and inspire others to do the impossible, Apple’s vice president of technology, Bud Tribble, called it a reality distortion field (RDF)” — Entrepreneur.com

Visionaries often ignore logic and rational thought, even Data, because it impedes progress. They’re unapologetically biased towards their end-goal. Ideally, the ability to harness both effectively is the ultimate goal for next generation Startups, Innovators and Entrepreneurs.

References

• Congdon, L. (2020). What You Can Learn From Steve Jobs About Distorting the Truth to Advance Your Vision. [online] Entrepreneur. Available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/313349 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2020].
• Kahneman, D. and Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Random House Audio.
• Ariely, D. and Jones, S. (2008). Predictably irrational. New York: Harper Audio.