False Cause (Post Hoc) is assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0298, within the Reasoning family. The core principle: assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. 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
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Plain-English Definition
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Feynman Explanation
The rooster crows. The sun rises. The rooster takes credit.
Core Principle
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
The rooster crows. The sun rises. The rooster takes credit.
Examples
- Crediting a new initiative for trends already underway.
- Most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
Executives usually notice this element only after it has cost something. By then it looks like a one-off. It is not. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: the rooster crows. The sun rises. The rooster takes credit. 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, most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors. It is amplified whenever most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors. Inside organizations that shows up as most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors. 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 use control groups, holdouts, and causal inference techniques. The leverage is not in explaining the behavior to people. It is in changing what the behavior earns.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Use control groups, holdouts, and causal inference techniques.
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.
- Use control groups, holdouts, and causal inference techniques.
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.
Reasoning that two things are alike based on shallow similarity.
Crediting a source or cause that isn't actually responsible.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Presenting two options as the only possibilities when more exist.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.
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.
Assuming that if one option is true, another must be false, when both can be true.
Presuming a purposeful actor behind events that may have no actor at all.
What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.
A finite set of well-defined instructions for solving a problem or performing a computation.
Every model simplifies reality; some are still useful.
Where False Cause (Post Hoc) 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.
- EssayAI Agents Inherit Your Incentives
How this element propagates into automated systems.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
Questions about False Cause (Post Hoc)
- What is False Cause (Post Hoc)?
- False Cause (Post Hoc) is assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0298, within the Reasoning family. The core principle: assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. 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 False Cause (Post Hoc)?
- Most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0298).
- How is False Cause (Post Hoc) exploited?
- Most 'we did X and Y improved' claims are post hoc errors.
- How do you design around False Cause (Post Hoc)?
- Use control groups, holdouts, and causal inference techniques.
- Which behavioral dimension does False Cause (Post Hoc) belong to?
- False Cause (Post Hoc) is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Reasoning", class "Mental Model". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0298 and its evidence grade is B.