Scientific Definition
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Plain-English Definition
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Feynman Explanation
Friendly data gets a pass. Hostile data gets the audit.
Core Principle
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Asymmetric scrutiny produces asymmetric conclusions.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Friendly data gets a pass. Hostile data gets the audit.
Examples
- Strategy reviews that pick apart bear cases more carefully than bull cases.
- Asymmetric scrutiny produces asymmetric conclusions.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Apply equal-rigor reviews to both supporting and opposing evidence.
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.
- Apply equal-rigor reviews to both supporting and opposing evidence.
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.
The brain evolved to reason adaptively, not always truthfully, to reduce the cost of errors.
We solve problems by adding, even when subtracting would be better.
Researchers favor conclusions aligned with their school, team, or sponsor.
Relying on examples that come to mind easily, not on actual frequency.
Systematic deviations from rationality in judgment.
Treating multiple data points as independent when they came from one source.
Testing hypotheses only by looking for confirming evidence.
Over-weighting one's own perspective when reconstructing events.
Mind latches onto the first plausible explanation and resists alternatives.
Research outcomes tend to favor the interests of the funders.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.
Assuming that if one option is true, another must be false, when both can be true.