Availability Bias

By Daniel Miessler on January 2nd, 2010: Tagged as Psychology

One of the most important dynamics at play within layperson debate is Availability Bias, which is where people are prone to believe that something is true because of the experiences they’ve had.

Example: Person A says smoking is dangerous, and Person B says it isn’t because his grandfather smoked continuously for 95 years before dying in a freak running accident.

In other words, to someone under the influence of this problem, reality as a whole is shaped according to the data available to them as an individual, which is necessarily and understandably limited.

Watch for it. ::

  • http://maxolasersquad.com/ Maxolasersquad

    This is my second biggest peeve in a discussion, next to red herrings.

  • cooperati

    It's also a proportion issue. Their one experience is dependent on some attachment, putting it up against the near real world representation of statistical analysis. When they pull this data, it's increased in value by some magnification, providing proof that automatically knocks out scientifically accrued information, at least in their own perceptions.

    Hearing this lets me understand that they are wrong and will stay wrong, or are wrong right now and I can enjoy moving on towards better endeavors.

    George Burns: “Until his death he smoked as many as ten cigars a day.” He is one man, and not more than one body. Calculated percentages allows for both theoretical options to be expressed, but it does not mean that in every random population that they would get to be equal, or that they are optional to either observe or ignore. The Process doesn't allow for that.


    One person, no matter the nature of their proposed importance, does not cancel out millions of others in the pool, nor are the others deniable unless they do not fit the qualifications, which must be relevant.
    -=T=-

  • cooperati

    It's also a proportion issue. Their one experience is dependent on some attachment, putting it up against the near real world representation of statistical analysis. When they pull this data, it's increased in value by some magnification, providing proof that automatically knocks out scientifically accrued information, at least in their own perceptions.

    Hearing this lets me understand that they are wrong and will stay wrong, or are wrong right now and I can enjoy moving on towards better endeavors.

    George Burns: “Until his death he smoked as many as ten cigars a day.” He is one man, and not more than one body. Calculated percentages allows for both theoretical options to be expressed, but it does not mean that in every random population that they would get to be equal, or that they are optional to either observe or ignore. The Process doesn't allow for that.


    One person, no matter the nature of their proposed importance, does not cancel out millions of others in the pool, nor are the others deniable unless they do not fit the qualifications, which must be relevant.
    -=T=-


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs