In the science of consciousness, there is the concept of “cognitive distortion” - repeated errors in thinking that all people have. Some of these mistakes are not harmful at all (and you might even say that they are useful), but many lead to inaccurate judgments and the fact that we do not think rationally.
We argue to win, not to get to the truth.
Everyone knows the phrase attributed to Socrates that “truth is born in a dispute.” But the idea of argument itself did not arise for this purpose: scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber put forward a theory (it is called the argumentative theory of reason) that in the course of the development of human society, people learned to argue and reason in order to gain power over each other. Modern people also depend on this: we continue to argue, even when all the facts are against us, because it is a tool of manipulation.
Mercier and Sperber believe that the ability to reason, ask questions and offer answers was not born in order to find the truth. We have learned to reason to persuade others - and to be more attentive when others try to persuade us. When you next Google confirmation of your words in a dispute and find nothing, think: perhaps you are simply wrong and do not want to admit it. It's just that in ancient times, losing an argument meant lowering your chances of survival, which is why our brains work that way.
We don't understand probability
The human brain has great difficulty assessing probability in everyday situations. A classic example: we are not afraid to get into a car, but many of us are very afraid of airplanes. At the same time, almost everyone knows that the chance of dying in a car accident is much higher than crashing on a plane, but our brain does not agree with this. Although statistically the chance of dying in a car is 1 in 84, and in an airplane - 1 in 5,000, or even 1 in 20,000. This is called denial of probability, a cognitive error that often leads to the fact that we exaggerate the risk of harmless things and not enough We are very afraid of truly dangerous ones. In addition, emotions often interfere with consciousness: it is believed that the more emotions are associated with an unlikely event, the more likely it seems to us.
We have double standards in relation to other people
In social psychology there is a concept called the fundamental attribution error. It sounds complicated, but in fact it means a simple thing: we tend to judge others and not delve into circumstances and justify ourselves. We explain the mistakes of other people by their personal problems and characteristics, and we justify our behavior and mistakes by external circumstances. Let's say your colleague was very late for work, and even came drunk - this is terrible, he is an uncontrollable alcoholic! And if you were late and arrived drunk, well, you were going through a difficult period in your life, and you needed a distraction.
This mistake sometimes leads us to believe that everyone has the same circumstances and therefore tend to judge others. That’s why, for example, there is the phenomenon of fat-shaming: people tend to judge fat people. For those who have never had problems with overweight, it seems that the circumstances are the same and people are just too lazy to act healthy image life; they do not take into account upbringing, metabolism, amount of free time, opportunity personal choice or other factors. It's crazy to think that everyone has the same circumstances, but everyone does it.
We trust people within our group more
A common idea in sociology: we divide all people into groups and love most those who fall into the same group with us, say, work colleagues or friends, or even people with the same skin color. This is partly due to the hormone oxytocin, the “love molecule.” In the brain, it helps us connect with people within our group. But oxytocin, unfortunately, also works in the opposite direction: we are afraid of all people outside the group, treat them with suspicion and even despise them. This is called “in-group favoritism” - we overestimate the capabilities and value of our group at the expense of people we know less well. This social phenomenon appeared in ancient times, when humanity was divided into tribes.
We're happy to follow the crowd
As the famous experiments of Solomon Asch showed, every person has a tendency towards conformity. Asch showed people a picture with four lines and asked which one was the same length as line X. We all saw that this was line B. Asch placed fake neighbors with people, who all called the wrong line C - and a third succumbed to the incorrect option imposed by the majority. A person is inclined to believe in something high probability, if other people already believe it. This is where they come from social norms and behaviors that spread within the group. The tendency to agree with the majority is why sociological surveys cannot be trusted; their results influence the way the people who are then surveyed think.
We perceive all numbers and values in relation to others
This is the so-called “anchoring effect” - we compare any new information (primarily numbers) with existing information, and we are most influenced by the information we heard first. Let's say a person comes to be hired and discusses a possible salary with the employer: the one who names the first number will set the tone for the entire conversation. A frame will appear in the heads of both interlocutors, which will in one way or another be based on the first number - any response sentence in their heads will be compared with it.
Marketers are very fond of using the anchoring effect: say, when we go to a clothing store, we compare the difference in price between items - but not the price itself. Therefore, some restaurants include very expensive dishes on the menu so that cheaper ones look attractive and reasonable next to them. Also, when we are offered three options to choose from, we usually choose the middle one - not too cheap and not too expensive; that's why fast food usually has small, medium and big size drink
We see coincidences and frequency where there are none
The famous Baader-Meinhof phenomenon: sometimes we suddenly notice things that we had not noticed before (especially if they began to have something to do with us), and we mistakenly believe that there are more of these things. A classic example: a person buys a red car and suddenly starts seeing red cars on the street all the time. Or a person comes up with some important number for himself - and suddenly it begins to seem to him that this number appears everywhere. The problem is that most people simply don't understand that this is a thinking error - and believe that some things actually happen with greater frequency, which can be very confusing for them. Therefore, we see coincidences where there are none - our brain begins to catch non-existent algorithms and repetitions from the surrounding reality.
Our brain believes that we are different people in the future
Research shows that when we think about ourselves in the future, parts of the brain that are responsible for how we think about other people are activated. In other words, if you are asked to imagine yourself 10 years from now, your brain imagines some strange stranger. This leads to what is called hyperbolic discounting (yes, another cumbersome phrase): we have a hard time thinking about the benefits for ourselves in the future - and we want to receive the benefits as soon as possible, even if they are smaller. Let's say you'd rather eat something unhealthy for immediate pleasure instead of thinking about your future health. Consciousness lives in the present moment, so we put off everything unpleasant for later. This phenomenon is of particular concern to doctors (for obvious reasons) and economists (we are bad at spending money wisely and saving it for later). One food-related study illustrates this thinking flaw well: When people plan what they will eat during the week, 74% choose fruit. And when choosing what to eat right now, 70% choose chocolate.
Categories:// fromThe saying that “all our thoughts materialize” is not empty words, but a fact proven by scientists and psychologists, which they directly connect with the law of attraction.
If you think about it, each of us, having thought about something, soon noticed that the thought was “embodied” into reality. For example, a woman, dreaming of the attention of a certain man, noticed that he actually began to show her signs of attention...
If you look at the power of thought from the other side, it turns out that we ourselves attract all the troubles, problems and ordinary troubles into our lives: by complaining about poverty, we can’t get out of debt; by complaining about failures in our personal lives, we remain lonely; Thinking about poor health, we constantly “catch” diseases and viruses, etc.
Of course, all this can be attributed to ordinary coincidences, but... Studying the human subconscious, scientists have long come to the conclusion that our thoughts are a kind of magnet that attracts what we want and makes it real.
Based on this, many psychologists have seriously begun to develop methods, having mastered which, most people achieve what they want in a minimum period of time: they become more successful, more financially secure, make progress in their careers and create happy families. How does this happen? The long formulation boils down to a simple conclusion: to become more successful, it is enough to learn to think and desire correctly!
Wish with caution!
Because the first rule of the law of attraction is that our desires, correctly formulated, will certainly come true. True, not right away. Probably, many girls have noticed this pattern: you dream about a guy, you shed inconsolable tears into your pillow, you try to no avail to attract the attention of your sweetheart. Time passes, the girl forgets about her passion, and here you go: her once adored passion appears on the horizon.
And all because (and this has been proven by scientific research!) is that, according to the law of attraction, we ourselves attract into our lives everything that we ultimately have in it. That is, what is subconsciously desired sooner or later becomes reality. This applies to almost all areas of life: health, career, wealth, relationships with the opposite sex.
Remember, our thoughts are our desires
Our subconscious is inextricably linked with the Universe, which records our thoughts, perceiving them as our desires. This is where the greatest danger lies. While a woman laments that she is lonely, the Universe takes the complaint for... a desire, and materializes the thought. As a result, years pass, admirers change, but the woman is still lonely... Because with the help of the power of gravity, HERSELF has attracted loneliness into her life, but she cannot or does not want to start thinking differently. After all, it is not so easy to eradicate the habit of thinking about bad things - for most of us it is easier to complain about fate and grumble that life is not working out.
And it turns out to be a vicious circle: we complain - the Universe records “complaints” as “wishes” - “wishes” come true - we complain even more... The same can be said about our fears. It’s not for nothing that they say that what we fear most happens to us.
Think right!
The above suggests the question: how to learn to think correctly - so as to change fate in better side and attract the desired benefits into your life?
The answer is simple: you need to learn to formulate your desires correctly! And before that, it doesn’t hurt to get rid of the old, negative thoughts with which we are used to living. They need to be thrown away like old trash, reconsider the past, determine a happy future, and from now on think only positively about it! Our own beliefs, painted in black tones, are the key to the same hopeless life with a bunch of problems and a lack of bright prospects. It's time to change!
Visualize your desires!
This is the most effective and efficient method for materializing your own thoughts. For what you want to come true, you need to understand and clearly imagine what you want, and think through all the details.
American researcher David di Salvo has collected dozens of studies that explain our behavior in his book “Understand What Your Brain Wants and Do the Opposite.” His theory is simple: our brains love stability, consistency and clarity. It’s a pity that all these qualities are our sworn enemies, since they prevent us from conquering new heights. We are plunging into the bottomless world of stereotypes. By sticking labels everywhere, we think we are making our lives easier and saving physical and mental energy.
Why do we fall in love with those who reject us? Why do we think we have everything under control all the time? David explains questions like these using scientific literature and research. Here are some interesting facts about our minds and behavior that you may not have previously realized.
Our brain loves stability. Uncertainty represents a threat: as it increases, the amygdala (threat response) is activated and activity in the ventral striatum decreases. Our brain “experiences” a terrible “malaise.”
The search for certainty can lead us to a state of inflexibility. We stop noticing obvious things, we move ahead contrary to our true desires. According to research conducted by a group of German and Italian scientists, people who are prepared for unpredictability cope with problems better and faster than those who strive for absolute certainty.
Our brain perceives everything at the schema level. For example, imagining summer, our imagination draws a picture of sun, sand, and warmth. If we remove one element from this scheme, then we ourselves will substitute our own “label”, the missing element. It will be different for everyone, in some cases it may coincide (template thinking).
We have confidence that we have everything under control and nothing can escape our attention. Therefore, people continue to play casinos and lotteries, inventing more and more new strategies for winning. Some people call it “fortune,” but this is just a catchphrase for others. Subconsciously, we are convinced that thanks to certain manipulations (which we keep under control) we can win in any matter.
The brain evolves so we are able to make decisions in real time. Because of this, people cannot project the future. This flaw is a real gravy train for marketers, for example. Wanting to get something specific, we believe the promises of others, we believe the beautiful pictures that others draw for us. Marketers decide for us which products we should choose. For some reason, our skin will definitely become flabby in a year, and without shampoo, in a week we will be “attacked” by dandruff.
David claims that we spend 30-50% of our time with our heads in the clouds. But even in this state, our brain is able to process information and solve some problems.
It’s not for nothing that computer games cause such a stir among people of all ages. Those who develop them have done a good job on identification. The same goes for books. Our brain always associates itself and its actions with something or someone. That's why we can't tear ourselves away from a computer toy or a certain book.
Scientists from the USA have proven that we use digital technologies in order not to feel lonely and to feel needed. Such “digital vaccines” sometimes have such a strong effect on the brain that we are able to recover and get out of depression by watching our favorite TV series or program. We are able to feel support and help from non-existent, fictitious images (actors, politicians, activists, musicians).
The feeling of loneliness does not depend on how many people surround us. The main thing is to get others to do what we need emotionally.
One study, which was published in 2012 in the journal Psychological Science, showed that if we were not accepted, not recognized, or stepped over, then we will experience only negative emotions to this object. But this does not mean that we will do the same in response. Vice versa. We will strive in every possible way for someone who pushes us away, even if we no longer need this someone. This strange behavior can often be observed in relationships between a man and a woman.
Fifteen years ago there was a revolution in psychology that changed our understanding of the mind. The cognitive revolution has inspired psychologists to think of the brain as part of an organic computer, rather than as a black box that will never be opened.
This metaphor has led psychologists to explore the central software as our daily functions, thus revealing the veil of secrecy about how the thought process, learning, memorization, and speech apparatus work.
Below are 10 classic cognitive psychology studies that have helped us better understand how the thinking process works.
Without specialists who influenced the course of history, the human race would cease to exist. But what about how experts think to achieve amazing results?
The answer lies in how experts, as opposed to novices, approach problems. This is what Chi et al. (1981) discovered when they compared how experts versus novices thought about physics problems.
Newbies tend to get stuck thinking about the superficial details of a problem, while experts see the root cause. An abstract approach to a problem makes experts more successful.
Short-term memory is actually much shorter than many people think. It lasts only 10-15 seconds.
We know this from a classic cognitive psychology study by Lloyd and Peterson (1959) in which participants tried to remember and recall a string of three-letter expressions such as FZX. During the test, after 3 seconds they could only remember 80% of the information, and after 18 seconds, only 10%.
People find formal logic extremely difficult and that's normal.
Here quick test for you; don't be surprised if your brain overheats:
“You are shown four cards laid out on the table, each numbered on one side, and back side colored. On the visible side the first two cards show 3 and 8, the other two are red and brown. How many and what kind of cards must be turned over to check the truth of the following statement: if the card shows an even number, then the back of the card is red? ”
The correct answer is to turn over two (and only two) cards: the number 8 and the brown back. Even after hearing Wason's answer and explanation for this task, most people do not believe his veracity. If you solved this problem correctly, you belong to the minority, namely 10% (Wason, 1968).
Our brain doesn't perceive this type formal logic.
The way you present a problem has a huge impact on how others perceive it. People do not like to take risks so much that even a hint of danger can make them run as fast as they can.
Participants in one survey conducted by Kahneman and Tversky (1981) were asked to imagine 600 terminally ill people. The disease has been treated, but it is risky. If you decide to use the treatment, here are the odds: “33% chance of saving all 600 patients, 66% chance of death.” Upon hearing this, 72% of people responded that it was a good bet.
Then a different wording was provided:
“33% - chances that patients will not die, 66% - probability that everyone will die” ... the number of respondents who would take risks according to such statistics decreased to 22%!
The uniqueness of this study is that both formulations have identical meaning. It's all about the presentation of information, which radically changes everything. The way we think dramatically influences how we solve problems.
In reality, we have two types of vision - real and virtual.
Our real eyes rotate in the eye orbits, and virtual eyes look around the field of view, choosing an object to focus attention on. People use virtual vision all the time: for example, when looking at each other using peripheral vision. There's no need to look attractive person straight into the eyes, just glance at him sideways.
Psychologists call this the "spotlight of attention" and the study actually measured this movement. This means that we can notice things a split second before our eyes focus on one thing.
Not only vision allows you to concentrate, hearing is also delicately designed.
So, if you are at a noisy party, you can ignore all voices except the voice of your interlocutor. Or you can eavesdrop on the conversation of those standing behind.
An excellent demonstration of this fact was presented in 1950 by Cherry (1953). He made the discovery that people could distinguish between different voices when reading two different messages.
If you take a toy duck and show it to a 12 month old baby, and then put your hands under the pillow and leave it there, the child will not notice that it is missing and will still look at your hands, and will be very unlikely to look under the pillow. This is explained by the fact that at this age, things that the child does not see, he perceives as non-existent.
As the famous child psychologist Jean Piaget said:
“The world around us appears to the child as a collection of pictures that arise from non-existence at the moment of action, and disappear into non-existence at the end of it.”
And finally, only six months later the child looks under the pillow; he realizes that things that are not in sight can continue to exist. And this is only a small fraction of the miracles concerning the development of children.
The brain integrates information from all of our senses. Our entire life experience is based on this information. This fact was brilliantly proven by McGurk's experiment (McGurk & MacDonald, 1976).
Watch the BBC video below to see the full effect. You won't be able to believe it until you see it for yourself. The feeling is really strange:
Sometimes memories arise in our thoughts that were somewhere in the depths of our memory and were, as it seemed to us, forgotten or transformed.
One of the most striking studies by Elizabeth Loftus demonstrated that memories can be changed, even suggested, over time.
Her study instilled the childhood memory of “one day you were lost in mall” in the memory of some people, despite the fact that their family members claim that such a memory is false. 50% of study participants were suggestible
There are all kinds of cognitive biases in the mind.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger found that the most ignorant people are the least aware of their ignorance. On the other hand, on the same scale, the most competent know their shortcomings best of all. published econet.ru
Translation by Anna Sushchenko
