Correcting Biases Once You’ve Identified Them
Most of the discussion on this blog seems to focus on figuring out how to identify biases. We implicitly assume that this is the hard part; that biases can be really sneaky and hard to ferret out, but that once you’ve identified a bias, correcting it is pretty straightforward and mechanical. If you’ve figured out that you have a bias that causes you to systematically overestimate the probability of a particular kind of event happening by .2, you simply subtract .2 from future estimates (or whatever). But it seems to me that actually correcting a bias can be pretty hard even once it’s been identified. For example, I have a tendency to swing a bit too late at a (slow-pitch) softball. I’m sure this bias could be at least partially corrected with effort, but it is definitely not simply a matter of saying to myself: "swing .5 seconds sooner than you feel like you should swing." That just can’t be done in real time without screwing up the other mechanics of the swing.
I think this is also a problem for more consequential matters In real decision-making situations, where there are elements of the problem that need attention besides the (already identified) bias, it is not going to be a trivial matter to fix the bias without screwing up some other part of the problem even worse. I’m not sure this is the right way to put it, but it seems like OB engineering is a seperate and important discipline distinct from OB science.
Pretty interesting observation.
There are basically two ways to deal with an observed bias. First, try to be aware and counter it. But, I agree with the late Tversky that this is a lot easier to say than do.
The second method is simply to avoid making those decisions that you have reason to believe that your biases are too great to overcome.
For example, suppose I tend to run red lights under certain circumstances causing a danger to myself and others. I could try to pay more attention to spotting red lights, or I could just stop driving in those circumstances.
Our entire due diligence law, protecting consumers from fraud, assumes that only the first method is valid: viz. giving investors, purchaser or consumers more information or knowledge to counter their biases. Many times, the second option is better - just don't make those decisions in which you know you are lousy at.
Alexis and HH, Good points. And HH, thanks for the advice!