Scientific Definition
Reflexively rejecting evidence that contradicts established norms.
Plain-English Definition
Reflexively rejecting evidence that contradicts established norms.
Feynman Explanation
The data is wrong because the data is inconvenient.
Core Principle
Reflexively rejecting evidence that contradicts established norms.
Mechanisms
Reflexively rejecting evidence that contradicts established norms.
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
The data is wrong because the data is inconvenient.
Examples
- Outside research dismissed by leadership because 'they don't understand our context.'
- Disruptive insight repelled by institutional antibodies.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Pre-commit to the criteria that would change your mind. Then watch for 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.
- Pre-commit to the criteria that would change your mind. Then watch for 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.
A story repeats until it becomes obviously true.
Contradictory evidence sometimes deepens the original belief.
Beliefs survive the evidence that should have killed them.
We hunt for evidence that we were right all along.
Updating beliefs too slowly when new evidence arrives.
Believing people get what they deserve.
Assuming new technology will be adopted faster and more usefully than it will.
Studying winners while ignoring identical losers.
We defend existing systems even when they harm us.
Evaluating an argument's logic based on whether you agree with the conclusion.
We see bias in others more easily than in ourselves.
Low ability paired with high confidence.