Cherry-Picked Citations is quoting only the studies that support the position. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0133, within the Statistical Fallacy family. The core principle: quoting only the studies that support the position. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Quoting only the studies that support the position.
Plain-English Definition
Quoting only the studies that support the position.
Feynman Explanation
A bibliography is also an opinion.
Core Principle
Quoting only the studies that support the position.
Mechanisms
Quoting only the studies that support the position.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
A bibliography is also an opinion.
Examples
- Whitepapers that cite only the wins.
- Internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
The mistake with this element is treating it as irrationality. It is almost always a rational response to a payoff nobody wrote down. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: quoting only the studies that support the position. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: a bibliography is also an opinion. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis. It is amplified whenever internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis. Inside organizations that shows up as internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to make the desired behavior observable, remove whatever currently pays for its opposite, and attach the reward to the behavior rather than to the noisy outcome downstream of it. Measure the behavior, not the sentiment. A survey will tell you how people feel about this; only observed action tells you whether it changed.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
Pending editorial review.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
A single story used as proof of a general claim.
n=1 generalized to n=everyone.
Selecting only the data that supports the conclusion.
Sweeping conclusions from a small sample.
Generalizing from winners while ignoring identical losers.
Drawing a target around wherever the bullets landed.
Attacking the person rather than the argument.
If A then B; B happened; therefore A.
It's true because authority says so.
Common sense says so, therefore it's true.
Believing something is true because of the consequences of its truth.
Substituting feeling for argument.
Where Cherry-Picked Citations is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- EssayGoodhart's Law in the Real World
How measurable proxies capture judgment.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
Cognitive shortcuts turned into scorecards.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
Questions about Cherry-Picked Citations
- What is Cherry-Picked Citations?
- Cherry-Picked Citations is quoting only the studies that support the position. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0133, within the Statistical Fallacy family. The core principle: quoting only the studies that support the position. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Cherry-Picked Citations?
- Internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0133).
- How is Cherry-Picked Citations exploited?
- Internal research conclusions engineered upstream of analysis.
- How do you design around Cherry-Picked Citations?
- Name the behavior you want in observable terms, remove what currently pays for the opposite, attach the reward to the behavior rather than a lagging proxy, and publish how you will detect gaming.
- Which behavioral dimension does Cherry-Picked Citations belong to?
- Cherry-Picked Citations is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Statistical Fallacy", class "Logical Fallacy". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0133 and its evidence grade is B.