Scientific Definition
Believing past random events influence future independent ones.
Plain-English Definition
Believing past random events influence future independent ones.
Feynman Explanation
We've missed four quarters — we're due for a hit. (You are not.)
Core Principle
Believing past random events influence future independent ones.
Mechanisms
Believing past random events influence future independent ones.
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
We've missed four quarters — we're due for a hit. (You are not.)
Examples
- Holding a position because it 'has to' revert.
- Decisions made on streaks rather than underlying probability.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Always evaluate the base rate fresh. Past outcomes don't change odds on independent events.
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.
- Always evaluate the base rate fresh. Past outcomes don't change odds on independent events.
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.
Believing a specific scenario is more likely than its more general one.
Believing streaks predict future streaks.
We underestimate time and cost; we overestimate benefit.
We prefer known risks to unknown ones, even when the unknown is better.
We ignore underlying probabilities in favor of vivid specifics.
Underestimating the probability of bad outcomes — especially to us.
Overestimating the probability of bad outcomes.
Worst-cases assumed as base-cases because they 'feel responsible.'
We prefer eliminating a small risk completely over reducing a larger one partially.
Systematic deviations from rationality in judgment.
Throwing more in because we already threw a lot in.
Generalizing from winners while ignoring identical losers.