Scientific Definition
Evaluating an argument's logic based on whether you agree with the conclusion.
Plain-English Definition
Evaluating an argument's logic based on whether you agree with the conclusion.
Feynman Explanation
If the answer feels right, the logic must be right.
Core Principle
Evaluating an argument's logic based on whether you agree with the conclusion.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Evaluating an argument's logic based on whether you agree with the conclusion.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Most strategy debates are belief bias dressed as analysis.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
If the answer feels right, the logic must be right.
Examples
- Accepting flawed reasoning for a conclusion you already held.
- Most strategy debates are belief bias dressed as analysis.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Evaluate the logic with the conclusion hidden, then reveal it.
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.
- Evaluate the logic with the conclusion hidden, then reveal it.
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.
Decisions optimize utility, not value.
Probability × payoff, summed across outcomes.
Decisions are shaped by who we believe we are — not only by monetary payoffs.
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.
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Over-weighting one's own perspective when reconstructing events.