حدّث مخك |
| | Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias | |
| | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
---|
شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:21 pm | |
| Hello everyone. In this video, we will understand about a very important feature that impacts our decision-making and leads us to making certain decision-making errors. We call these as decision-making biases and we will learn about this feature, which is called as associative coherence. Let me begin with a very simple and general example of decision-making, and we'll see how do we take decisions and what happens to us when we are making decisions? Let us begin with this situation. Let's imagine a father and son, they are driving in a car and their car meets a horrible accident. In this car accident, the father dies. Son is also injured and is rushed to a hospital for a surgery. He is into the operation theater, the doctor comes, everybody is ready for the surgery, just when the surgery is about to start, doctor looks at the boy and says, I cannot operate this boy. This boy is my son. Now my question to you is, if this is the situation, who is the doctor. I would want you to think about the situation carefully and write down the answer to this question on your note books. Well, the answer to this question is this doctor is the boy's mother. Many of us think that, how could this be possible? Father is dead but then the doctor says, I cannot operate this boy because he is my son. Then this is a decision-making bias, this is a stereotype. This is a problem when we think about the situation, very rarely do we think about that this doctor could be boy's mother. Now we want to look at what happens when we are taking decisions and why do we make these kind of errors when it comes to decision-making? Let us look at this pattern on the board and I want you to think about and read for yourself what this pattern is. Let's look at another pattern and read for yourself, what do you see on the board? Now, let's look at both these patterns together. You will notice that the stimulus in the center of both the patterns is exactly the same. However, when you read the first pattern, you read it as or many others would read it as A, B, and C but when we read the second pattern, many of us will read it as 12, 13, and 14. Now what happens? The stimulus is the same but when we are taking decisions, we are influenced by what has happened before, what comes before the stimulus and what is coming after the stimulus because we saw A and C, we thought the pattern is B. Because we saw 12 and 14, we thought that the pattern is 13, then this is a problem. This is a problem, this is a bias and this feature of decision-making is called as associative coherence. We make coherence of the stimulus that we see by looking at what has happened before or after and the stimulus is interpreted so that it is coherent to what we know. Ambiguity is suppressed, we become very confident and positive about our decisions and the frightening thing is that this happens at top speed even without thinking, we take certain decisions. The pattern, the stimulus, the situation that is before us, we look at it so as to make what we know, coherence with what we know, so we want to fit it in. Very rarely we recognize that the pattern could be random. Pattern could be different from what we know and this feature is the associative coherence, which makes us take or make certain big errors in our decision-making. Remember the stimulus that you may be seeing may actually be different. It is not necessary that it should be coherent and this feature of coherence could lead us to making many decision-making errors. Thank you. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:21 pm | |
| The Anchoring Bias
Hello learners, in an earlier video, we had learnt about the feature of associative coherence, which told us that when we look at a stimulus, we tend to interpret it in accordance with what we know, in accordance with what has happened before the stimulus, and what's happening around it. We will try to fit the stimulus, the new event, or situation in accordance with what is going on. Now, this feature can lead to multiple biases. We look at one very important bias of decision-making, which is called as the anchoring bias in this video. Let's start with a situation. There was a very nice experiment that was once conducted. There were two groups of people who were given a question. The first group was given a question and the question said, is the average price of a German car more or less than Indian rupees, 25 lakhs? The group was shown the statement, and then they were asked to write the number that comes to their mind. I would want you to look at this situation, look at this question and write the answer. You've got to write a number. The question is, is the average price of a German car more or less than 25 lakhs? After you have written the answer, let's look at what the other group was shown. The other group was shown a similar question but the question said, is the average price of a German car more or less than Indian rupees, five lakhs? They were again asked to report a number. They were asked to write a number that they think would be appropriate for this question. It was very interestingly found out that the group which was shown 25 lakhs and you must look at the number that you wrote, more or less many people at on an average, the number that was reported by the first group was somewhere between 15-40 lakhs. That means the people were writing that the average price of a German car in India ranges from somewhere between 15-40 lakhs. They reported different kind of numbers. The other group, which was five lakhs, when their answers were checked, what was found was this group actually reported numbers ranging from 2-20 lakhs. Now, what does this mean? It means that everything remains the same. The German cars remain the same, the Indian currency remains the same. But what has changed? Just a small piece of information in the question to the first group, it was shown that the average price of a German car is more or less than 25 lakhs. The second group was shown is the price more or less than five lakhs. What happened? The first group of people started working with 25 in their mind. The second group of people started working with five in their mind and this led to differences in their answers. There was a significant difference between the numbers reported by the group which saw 25 lakhs and the numbers reported by the group that saw five lakhs. This bias is called as the anchoring bias. We get anchored to certain pieces of information that come to us. Associative coherence, remember it told us that our brain likes to put the stimulus that it sees in coherence with the answers that it is going to make is going to be in coherence with the numbers that it is seeing, the patterns it is seeing. Because it saw 25 lakhs the decision was close to 25 lakhs. The second case, because it saw five lakhs the answer was close to, in general about five lakhs. There is an activation of compatible associations. We try to make sense of the stimulus that is coming to us. Anchors could be anything, it could be general statements made by your friends. It could be some information that you see in the newspaper. It could be even a passing comment. Just imagine a situation. This may have happened to you many times. You are in the office, everything is going very well. Suddenly a friend comes to you and says, well, I'm having a very bad day. This organization is not very good and so on. Just a statement that the organization is not very good what happens is your brain now invokes those compatible associations. It is now making coherence of the information that it has obtained. This is a very problematic thing. We get anchored to many situations, many prior pieces of information. The question that we saw in a prior video where the father and son had met a car crash and the doctor was mother. It was a gender stereotype. Stereotypes are also anchors. There are different anchors that can make us exhibit this bias. We must try to overcome this bias by looking at more pieces of information. Please look at more pieces of information before you make a decision. You must look at the numbers, you must look at the data or the evidence before you jump to a decision. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:22 pm | |
| The Availability Bias
Hello learner. In this video, we'll learn about another bias that is associated with the feature of associative coherence and this bias is called as the availability bias. We had learned that associative coherence is a feature where our brain starts to make decisions in coherence with what it already knows. In coherence with the data with the numbers that it is already familiar with. Let's start with a question, let's ponder on this question. The question is, will you pay to get a one Lakh insurance for car travel? The other question is, will you pay to get a one Lakh insurance for air travel? International Air travel? Will you be willing to pay to get insurance for air travel? Now these are two questions. Will you pay to get insurance for car travel? Will you pay to get insurance for air travel? Think about these questions and write the answer to these questions in your notebook. It has been found, research today tells us that when people are asked this kind of a question most often, it has been found that people are likely to respond yes to the air travel. And generally no to car travel. Then asked why do you say this? They feel that air travel is riskier, more dangerous than car travel. Now, the question before us is what's the probability of a car crash and what's the probability of a plane crash? Well, air travel for your information is one of the safest modes of travel today. Car travel on the other hand, is fretted with risk, there is a great danger of accident actually every minute or so. There is an accident happening somewhere in India, somewhere around the world. It is a very risky proposition. However, when people are asked will you buy car travel insurance, most of them don't because they think air travel is riskier. On the other hand, just think of air travel, it is very, very safe. But why does this happen? Why do people answer that we will buy air travel insurance? Because if you think about your own self, our brain is actually much more likely to generate visuals, imagery examples of an air crash airplane crash than a car crash. When an airplane crashes, what happens? The news of the crash is covered in all media. It is there on the social media, it is there in the print media, it is their online media, it is, they're everywhere. Our brains are bombarded with this piece of information that there has been an airplane crash. It is there in our mind and our mind, our brain can very easily recollect situations and examples of airplane crash. On the other hand, car crashes actually so rudimentary, it is actually so frequent that we don't even pay attention to the news. It is covered in some corner of the newspaper somewhere hidden in the media. So our brain does not pay too much often attention. What happens in the process is we violate the norms of probability. We go by what we can easily recollect rather than actually going by the numbers, the statistics and the evidence. This bias is called as the availability bias. Availability bias tells us that we are likely to take decisions for which information is more readily available to us, which we can recollect more easily. And then we don't actually go by data numbers, statistics, probability. We actually leave it aside and we are focused on the information that is available to us. We rely on our memory when taking decisions rather than frequency rather than statistics and rather than probability. Once again, if we have to overcome this bias, it is very clear that we have to take a pause. We have to stop ourselves think about this situation and ask ourselves, is it good enough to just bank on the memory? Because remember associative coherence, anything that we remember, our brain starts to work around that piece of information. We've got to step aside from that and then use the data, use the number, use the analysis, use the evidence to actually base our decisions on. Otherwise, we may make errors in our decisions and that would be wrong. Thank you very much. [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:22 pm | |
| Overconfidence and Confirmation Bias
[MUSIC] Hello learner. In this video we learn about the next two biases that are related to the feature of associative coherence, and which lead to errors in our decision making. These are called as the overconfidence bias and confirmation bias. Let's look at this situation. Let's imagine there are three individuals, Venugopal, Matthew and Deepa who are secretaries in an organization and their task is to type out reports. Venugopal is from Chennai, Matthews from Kerala and Deepa comes from a small village in Bihar. Their typing speeds are given: Venugopal types 60 words per minute, Matthew types 50 words per minute and Deepa types 30 words per minute. If I were to show you this data and I was to give you this information, what would we say about Deepa's performance? Most likely we would come to the conclusion that Deepa is the laggard in the group. Deepa is not a good performer. She is the slowest in typing and so obviously third in out of the three individuals. However, let me show you some more pieces of information. The first piece of information is that while Matthew and Venugopal had other jobs before joining the organization, this is Deepa's first job. She joined three months ago. What do you think about Deepa's performance now? Just think about it, reflect on it and you can write the answer in your notebooks. Let's look at some more pieces of information. The next piece of information is Venugopal and Matthew have new imported typewriters. Their keyboards are actually better, whereas Deepa has an old keyboard which breaks down frequently. What do you think about Deepa's performance now? Let's look at another piece of evidence: Venugopal and Matthew's work is typing of simple reports in English and they still make some errors. On the other hand, Deepa actually is given mathematical and statistical data to type out and her work is error free. What do we think about Deepa's performance now? And the last piece of information is that Deepa does her typing by touch, Venugopal and Matthew are always looking at the keyboard. Does that change our answer? What's the evaluation that we have about Deepa? Just think about this situation. We started out by looking at Venugopal, Matthew and Deepa there's typing speed, 60 words per minute, 50 words per minute and 30 words per minute. And then we looked at additional pieces of information and we looked at how our own judgment, our own decision about Deepa's performance, changes over time as we see additional information. The first image of Deepa which we had when we saw that first piece of information and then the last image when we have seen all this information that we have seen. What does this tell us about our own judgments, our own decision making? We are very likely to take decisions based on selective information. We may make errors if we look at information only selectively. We look at data only selected. So there are two biases that we must be careful about when we are taking decisions. The first one is what is called as confirmation bias. If we have seen Deepa's performance as 30 words per minute, the confirmation bias tells us that I look for information that confirms to my hypothesis. Or confirms to my judgment that Deepa is a poor performer. I may actually close my search and look for only that piece of evidence which will support my decision that Deepa is a poor performer. But I want to show you that the evidence that I provided was against Deepa being a poor performer. So there may be some piece of information that we may not actually look at because I have made a decision. And then I will only confirm, look at information that confirms to my decision. And that's a big bias because remember we may be driven by that associative coherence. Which is the tendency to take a decision in coherence with what you already know and that could be wrong. On the other hand, overconfidence bias. Again, what is overconfidence? Because I am so confident that my answer is right, I don't look at other pieces of information. We are more likely to be confident about our decisions than it is reasonable. If you are not looking on additional pieces of information, then the decision you are reaching may actually be wrong. You will have to actually look at information that disconfirms your hypothesis. Disconfirms your judgment. If you cannot find any such information, then you can believe that your judgment is right, that your decision is right. But if there is an evidence that disconfirms your first decision, your first judgment, then you must be willing to change your decision. Otherwise, you will be driven by the confirmation bias, which is selectively looking at information to confirm to your decision and overconfidence bias. Which is believing that you are right, you are right in this situation in order to take care of these biases. Remember searching for data, searching for evidence that this confirms to our hypothesis is the only measure, and we must do it honestly and sincerely. Thank you very much. [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:23 pm | |
| Framing Bias
Hello learner. In this video, we'll look at one more bias that is related to the feature of associative coherence, and this bias is called as the framing bias. Let us start by looking at a set of questions. The question is, out of these two options, which will you prefer? Fifty percent chance of winning 200, or 100% chance of winning 100? You have to respond to this set of questions. What's your preference? Write it down in your notebook. After you have written the answer to this set of questions let's look at another set of questions. This set of questions says, you have a 50% chance of losing zero, and a 50% chance of losing 200. On the other hand, the other question is, you have a sure loss. 100 percent chance of losing rupees 100. Out of these two options, which option will you prefer? You have to write the answer in your notebook. Now after you have responded to both these set of questions, compare your responses. When I first asked you, what will you prefer? 100 percent chance of winning 100, or a 50% chance of winning 200, 50% chance of winning zero. In general, it has been seen, most of us are likely to respond that I will choose 100% chance of winning 100. Look at your answer. What did you write? On the other hand when we look at 50% chance of losing 200, 50% chance of losing zero, and a 100% chance of losing 100, in general, most of us are likely to respond that I will choose 50% chance of losing 200 and a 50% chance of losing zero. What does this tell us about ourselves? When it comes to looking at gains, when it comes to winning, we are all risk averse. When it comes to losses, failures, we become risk-seeking. This is a tendency that has been shown and demonstrated multiple times. This is a bias that is called as a framing bias. When it comes to losses, we are willing to lose even 200 in the hope and that is I may not, I may lose only zero. But when it comes to gain, we were willing to let go of a gain of 200% or so. But we did not choose a gain of 200, we actually went for a gain of 100 only. We become risk averse. Then it came to loss we became risk-seeking. Now let me give you an example. Let us imagine there are two people, one person invests in a fixed deposit in a bank. The other person invest in equity in stock markets and mutual funds. How do these two people look at their gains and losses? The fixed deposit person will say, I don't want to invest in equity, I am very happy with the sure gain of 5% or 6%, from my bank account. At least I'm getting it. There may be a gain of 15% from mutual fund, but I may also lose money because stock markets may also crash. I become risk-averse when I am in this frame of a gain. What does the person who is investing in equities and mutual funds say? The person says, if you invest in fixed deposit, there is a sure loss, because inflation is going to eat up your money. Inflation is going to take away because the inflation, let's say 7% your money is growing at 5% you are at a net loss of 2%. There is a sure loss in your option. On the other hand, when it comes to equities and mutual funds, I may lose, but I may also gain more. When we look at this situation from a loss frame, we suddenly find that taking risk is all right. Taking risk is actually good in this particular situation. Similarly, a salaried person and an entrepreneur. A salaried person would say I'm very happy with my salary. I don't want to be an entrepreneur. I may make money but I may also lose whatever I'm getting. There's a sure gain in my salary. An entrepreneur on the other hand would say, well, if you keep working in a job there's a sure loss because you are not getting what you are worth. On the other hand if I startup I may make money I may lose, but in the other option there is a short loss. These people then are willing to take risk. They get the courage. This is a bias that has been talked about in literature as the framing bias. It shows that people should however be indifferent to probabilities, the expectations in the case of 50% of 200, and 50% of zero, and a sure gain of 100. The utility, if we were to calculate the expectation is the same,100 rupees. But people are more likely to take risk when they look at the situation in the frame of losses. When they are looking at the situation in terms of gains, they become risk averse. What is the lesson? What is the message for us? When we look at the information coming to us, we must not stick to one frame. It is always beneficial to look at this situation from a gain frame if you are in a loss frame. If you are looking at this situation from the gain frame, you must look at it from the loss frame also, it will help you look at the possibilities, the compromises that you will have to make, and will give you an opportunity to take better decisions. Otherwise, the general tendency is that the gain frame will always lead to a risk-averse decision, a loss frame will always lead to a risk-seeking decision. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/26/2024, 10:29 pm | |
| Attribute Substitution and Representative Bias
Hello learner. In this video, we learn about the second important features that impacts our decision making and that is attribute substitution. Let us start by looking at a situation. There was a very nice interesting experiment that was conducted. A group of individuals were asked these two questions and the questions were asked in a sequential manner. They were first asked the question, what's your level of overall happiness? And then afterwards they were asked the second question, how many dates did you have last month? Now dates is not the fruit date, it is how many outings with your girlfriend or boyfriend did you have last month? Their answers were looked at and an association was calculated correlation in the answers on happiness. And how many dates did they have last month was calculated and the answer. The correlation between the two answers was non-significant, very small, -.12. Another group of people, individuals, were asked the same two questions but they were asked in a different order. They were first asked the question, how many dates did you have last month again, not the fruit date. How many outings did you have with your girlfriend or boyfriend in the last month and second, what's your level of happiness? You would be surprised to know that the correlation that was non-significant, -0.12 in the first group, jumped to .66 for the second group, there was a high association that was found between the answer on happiness and the answer on dates. What does this tell us? This feature is called as the attributes substitution. If I were to ask you just think about yourself your life and say, well how happy you are. That's a difficult question, isn't it? How happy I am? My happiness depends on a lot of things. What's going on in my personal life? What's going on in my professional life? What's happening at the job front? Am I doing what I like? There's so many things that impact me when it comes to happiness. But if I were to ask you a question, how happy you are or satisfied you are working in your present organization. And then I want to ask you how happy you are?. Now what have I given you? I have given you a peg I have given you a crutch on which I can then ask the happiness question. The first question on organization is a little more specific. I can easily answer the question on am I satisfied with my organization or not? Then I ask the happiness question. What happens is the brain substitutes the difficult question which is the overall happiness with the attributes of the question that I have just answered which is organization. So the attributes, the question of organization is then used to answer the question of happiness and this feature of our brain is called as attribute substitution. We kind of superimpose things and aspects of a particular event, a particular situation. A particular individual and then superimposed on a lot of other things. Let's look at kind of a situation. Praguni is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She did her MBA as a student and she was deeply concerned with the issues of discrimination. And social justice and also participated in anti nuclear demonstration. And then I would ask you to tell me, given this first piece of information, what do you think Praguni does when she has grown up? She is an investment banker and is active in feminist movement and she is active in feminist movement. Out of these three options, which do you think would be more likely? You can think about it. There are two arguments, Praguni is more likely to be an investment banker, some women investment bankers are not feminist and Praguni is one of them. Praguni is more likely to be a feminist investment banker than she is likely to be an investment banker, because she resembles an active feminist more than she resembles an investment banker. Now, it has been found that people are more likely to choose the second argument over the first argument. But let me tell you in this case, in this situation, all three are equally likely. We tend to believe that Praguni would be doing something because we have seen one specific characteristic which is what she was doing as an MBA student. Now, we tend to superimpose that we extrapolate that information to other things and other situations as well about her career. We make decisions about what would be her liking in terms of her career, the choices that she would be making etc. One trait induces judgments about multiple traits and multiple dimensions. And this bias is called as representative bias. Just by looking at one specific thing we feel it is representative of the entire set of characteristics, the entire individual. In extreme cases we can endorse a trait, we can endorse the quality even when there is no direct evidence of it. Well, think about how would Praguni be dressing what kind of choices she would be having about her food etc and that's a bias. That's a problem in decision making. Our brains do not keep track of the source of information, they keep substituting. We don't remember what was the piece of information, what was that relevant to the question that I am now answering? But we keep substituting those difficult questions and we ignore rationality, we ignore laws of probability, and we are extremely poor at recognizing randomness. And that's a big problem of attributes substitution which leads to one of the important biases which is representative bias. Thank you very much [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:03 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video, we'll look at one more bias that is related to the feature of associative coherence, and this bias is called as the framing bias. Let us start by looking at a set of questions. The question is, out of these two options, which will you prefer? Fifty percent chance of winning 200, or 100% chance of winning 100? You have to respond to this set of questions. What's your preference? Write it down in your notebook. After you have written the answer to this set of questions let's look at another set of questions. This set of questions says, you have a 50% chance of losing zero, and a 50% chance of losing 200. On the other hand, the other question is, you have a sure loss. 100 percent chance of losing rupees 100. Out of these two options, which option will you prefer? You have to write the answer in your notebook. Now after you have responded to both these set of questions, compare your responses. When I first asked you, what will you prefer? 100 percent chance of winning 100, or a 50% chance of winning 200, 50% chance of winning zero. In general, it has been seen, most of us are likely to respond that I will choose 100% chance of winning 100. Look at your answer. What did you write? On the other hand when we look at 50% chance of losing 200, 50% chance of losing zero, and a 100% chance of losing 100, in general, most of us are likely to respond that I will choose 50% chance of losing 200 and a 50% chance of losing zero. What does this tell us about ourselves? When it comes to looking at gains, when it comes to winning, we are all risk averse. When it comes to losses, failures, we become risk-seeking. This is a tendency that has been shown and demonstrated multiple times. This is a bias that is called as a framing bias. When it comes to losses, we are willing to lose even 200 in the hope and that is I may not, I may lose only zero. But when it comes to gain, we were willing to let go of a gain of 200% or so. But we did not choose a gain of 200, we actually went for a gain of 100 only. We become risk averse. Then it came to loss we became risk-seeking. Now let me give you an example. Let us imagine there are two people, one person invests in a fixed deposit in a bank. The other person invest in equity in stock markets and mutual funds. How do these two people look at their gains and losses? The fixed deposit person will say, I don't want to invest in equity, I am very happy with the sure gain of 5% or 6%, from my bank account. At least I'm getting it. There may be a gain of 15% from mutual fund, but I may also lose money because stock markets may also crash. I become risk-averse when I am in this frame of a gain. What does the person who is investing in equities and mutual funds say? The person says, if you invest in fixed deposit, there is a sure loss, because inflation is going to eat up your money. Inflation is going to take away because the inflation, let's say 7% your money is growing at 5% you are at a net loss of 2%. There is a sure loss in your option. On the other hand, when it comes to equities and mutual funds, I may lose, but I may also gain more. When we look at this situation from a loss frame, we suddenly find that taking risk is all right. Taking risk is actually good in this particular situation. Similarly, a salaried person and an entrepreneur. A salaried person would say I'm very happy with my salary. I don't want to be an entrepreneur. I may make money but I may also lose whatever I'm getting. There's a sure gain in my salary. An entrepreneur on the other hand would say, well, if you keep working in a job there's a sure loss because you are not getting what you are worth. On the other hand if I startup I may make money I may lose, but in the other option there is a short loss. These people then are willing to take risk. They get the courage. This is a bias that has been talked about in literature as the framing bias. It shows that people should however be indifferent to probabilities, the expectations in the case of 50% of 200, and 50% of zero, and a sure gain of 100. The utility, if we were to calculate the expectation is the same,100 rupees. But people are more likely to take risk when they look at the situation in the frame of losses. When they are looking at the situation in terms of gains, they become risk averse. What is the lesson? What is the message for us? When we look at the information coming to us, we must not stick to one frame. It is always beneficial to look at this situation from a gain frame if you are in a loss frame. If you are looking at this situation from the gain frame, you must look at it from the loss frame also, it will help you look at the possibilities, the compromises that you will have to make, and will give you an opportunity to take better decisions. Otherwise, the general tendency is that the gain frame will always lead to a risk-averse decision, a loss frame will always lead to a risk-seeking decision. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:06 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video, we learn about the second important features that impacts our decision making and that is attribute substitution. Let us start by looking at a situation. There was a very nice interesting experiment that was conducted. A group of individuals were asked these two questions and the questions were asked in a sequential manner. They were first asked the question, what's your level of overall happiness? And then afterwards they were asked the second question, how many dates did you have last month? Now dates is not the fruit date, it is how many outings with your girlfriend or boyfriend did you have last month? Their answers were looked at and an association was calculated correlation in the answers on happiness. And how many dates did they have last month was calculated and the answer. The correlation between the two answers was non-significant, very small, -.12. Another group of people, individuals, were asked the same two questions but they were asked in a different order. They were first asked the question, how many dates did you have last month again, not the fruit date. How many outings did you have with your girlfriend or boyfriend in the last month and second, what's your level of happiness? You would be surprised to know that the correlation that was non-significant, -0.12 in the first group, jumped to .66 for the second group, there was a high association that was found between the answer on happiness and the answer on dates. What does this tell us? This feature is called as the attributes substitution. If I were to ask you just think about yourself your life and say, well how happy you are. That's a difficult question, isn't it? How happy I am? My happiness depends on a lot of things. What's going on in my personal life? What's going on in my professional life? What's happening at the job front? Am I doing what I like? There's so many things that impact me when it comes to happiness. But if I were to ask you a question, how happy you are or satisfied you are working in your present organization. And then I want to ask you how happy you are?. Now what have I given you? I have given you a peg I have given you a crutch on which I can then ask the happiness question. The first question on organization is a little more specific. I can easily answer the question on am I satisfied with my organization or not? Then I ask the happiness question. What happens is the brain substitutes the difficult question which is the overall happiness with the attributes of the question that I have just answered which is organization. So the attributes, the question of organization is then used to answer the question of happiness and this feature of our brain is called as attribute substitution. We kind of superimpose things and aspects of a particular event, a particular situation. A particular individual and then superimposed on a lot of other things. Let's look at kind of a situation. Praguni is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She did her MBA as a student and she was deeply concerned with the issues of discrimination. And social justice and also participated in anti nuclear demonstration. And then I would ask you to tell me, given this first piece of information, what do you think Praguni does when she has grown up? She is an investment banker and is active in feminist movement and she is active in feminist movement. Out of these three options, which do you think would be more likely? You can think about it. There are two arguments, Praguni is more likely to be an investment banker, some women investment bankers are not feminist and Praguni is one of them. Praguni is more likely to be a feminist investment banker than she is likely to be an investment banker, because she resembles an active feminist more than she resembles an investment banker. Now, it has been found that people are more likely to choose the second argument over the first argument. But let me tell you in this case, in this situation, all three are equally likely. We tend to believe that Praguni would be doing something because we have seen one specific characteristic which is what she was doing as an MBA student. Now, we tend to superimpose that we extrapolate that information to other things and other situations as well about her career. We make decisions about what would be her liking in terms of her career, the choices that she would be making etc. One trait induces judgments about multiple traits and multiple dimensions. And this bias is called as representative bias. Just by looking at one specific thing we feel it is representative of the entire set of characteristics, the entire individual. In extreme cases we can endorse a trait, we can endorse the quality even when there is no direct evidence of it. Well, think about how would Praguni be dressing what kind of choices she would be having about her food etc and that's a bias. That's a problem in decision making. Our brains do not keep track of the source of information, they keep substituting. We don't remember what was the piece of information, what was that relevant to the question that I am now answering? But we keep substituting those difficult questions and we ignore rationality, we ignore laws of probability, and we are extremely poor at recognizing randomness. And that's a big problem of attributes substitution which leads to one of the important biases which is representative bias. Thank you very much [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:07 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video, we'll learn about another error, another bias of decision making that can be related to the feature of attribute substitution. This bias is called as the sunk cost bias. There are different terms and terminologies that are given. We also call it as escalation of commitment bias. Let's look at a situation. Let's say that last month you purchased a ticket for a movie. It cost you 300 rupees to see a new science fiction movie that has been released and is up there in the theaters. As the date approaches, you realize that the show time that you have purchased the ticket for is clashing with another appointment that you have got. What would you do? You have an appointment but you have also purchased a ticket, you have invested 300 rupees in the ticket to go and watch the movie. Most likely, many of us would actually find out ways to maybe move around the appointment and not take it up or not follow through with that appointment and instead decide to go and watch the movie. It is very hard even for people who do not go to the theater and take the appointment. It is very hard because it feels that well, you had invested that 300 rupees in the ticket and you had to watch that movie. Now this feeling that I had invested something prior and therefore I must follow it up with some action in the future too so that my investment is justified is actually called as the sunk cost bias. What we fail to recognize at these moments in these particular situations is that the sunk cost, what we had invested prior is gone. It is an investment that was of the past and it should not be relevant to the future choices that we make. But in situations of uncertainty, in situations of dilemma, the difficult question is substituted with the easy question, which is the investment. Now the difficult question is should you let go of the investment or should you follow up with the investment that you had made? Well, we kind of follow it up with the easy question, which is no, I had a particular investment and so I should follow it up. Sunk cost actually is relevant to decisions. Sunk cost has been paid already. So you must now think about carefully what the additional incremental investment you will have to make if you were to actually follow it up or you will take another decision, another alternative. That's the real question. But we find it very difficult to get over it and that is a problem. That is something that we must avoid. It is important to remember that substitution will happen when you cannot answer a difficult question. The difficult question will be substituted with the easier question. Having said about these biases that we have been discussing, we have talked about two important features of decision making, which is associative coherence and attribute substitution. We've discussed some of the biases that we have covered. Where does this all lead us to? It tells us that there is a problem in the way we take decisions. Let me give you a question, a very simple question. A bat and a ball together cost 110 rupees. The bat costs one hundred rupees more than the ball. How much does the bat and ball cost separately? Write the answer in your notebooks. The answer to this question is that the ball costs 5 rupees and the bat costs 105 rupees because the bat has to cost 100 rupees more than the ball. But when we look at this situation, observe that the immediate tendency in your brain, the immediate tendency of your mind is to write that the answer is 100 and 10 rupees. 100 rupees for the bat, 10 rupees for the ball. But that's the wrong answer. That's a bias. That's the error of judgment. That's the error of decision making. So, when we look at situations, having covered all these biases that we have been talking about, we have covered all these two features. When we look at a situation, a problem, our brain goes by processing fluency. It tries to quickly come to a decision. It tries to quickly jump to a conclusion and that processing is primed, it looks at coherence, it is clear. Anything that seems clear, easy, and pleasant, the brain will pay more attention to that. What it will do. This leads to fluency. It leads to quick automatic decisions, but the answers are familiar. We feel they are true. I have experienced them before. I am very confident of those decisions. Those are right decisions. Those are good decisions for me. But I want to tell you that this is wrong. This is an illusion. If you can process something more fluently, it does not mean you are taking the right decisions. You may have to step back, think more and then look at the data and evidence to take right decisions. And that is extremely important feature of taking good decisions, that you must overcome the illusion of validity. You must overcome processing fluency and work hard on your decisions. Thank you. [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:08 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video we'll learn about the two systems of decision making, system 1 and system 2. In earlier videos, we have learned about the two features of making decisions, associative coherence and attribute substitution. We have also learned about the different biases that are related to these two features. We will put all of this together in this video and understand what are the two ways of making decisions. Let us begin with the first system of taking decisions which is called as the intuition-based decision making, fast, automatic, decision making. Let's look at this photo, this image. If I were to ask you what's the emotion being displayed? They would be very prompt in answering this is anger, this is an angry child. Intuitions are actually the fast and automatic mode of decision making. A lot of times you would have heard people saying, how do I take decision? Well, I make intuitive decisions, this was intuitive. There was a sense, it is gut feel, sixth sense. Many words that are used when it comes to describing intuitions and intuitive decision making. Well, there are many examples of people taking intuitive decisions and they are actually correct. The first image is grandmaster Viswanathan Anand. Well, grandmasters can play multiple moves. In a minute, they can make multiple moves. They can play chess with multiple people at a time and still not make errors. Well, I am a very naive chess player and I find it hard to play chess with even one person, whereas a grandmaster can play chess with multiple people and still be right. Sherlock Holmes, the famous detective, often used to look at the crime scene and intuitively decide and identify what's going on and what could be the possible clue to be looked at in this particular crime scene that he was looking at. The third situation is that of firefighters. In the very famous book, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, he writes an incidence where the firefighters go into a burning building. The leader of the pack looks at the building on fire and immediately orders the group, the team that he was leading to rush out and vacate the building. As soon as they rush out and come out of the building, the whole building collapses. So the author asked this leader, how did you know that you have to vacate this building? The leader says, "Well, I don't know it was intuition, it was my gut feel, it was blink. In that blink, I took that decision and that was right.” There are experts who take decisions and these decisions are automatic, these are fast, these are spontaneous, these are effortless. The most important thing that I want to tell you that it comes to intuition, is that intuition is nothing more or nothing less than pattern recognition. Whenever we say we take intuitions, we take intuitive decision making or we are working on intuitions, it's all about recognizing the pattern. Grandmasters recognizes the pattern on the chessboard, Sherlock Holmes recognizes the pattern and the crime scene, the firefighters recognize the pattern of buildings on fire, and they can take quick, spontaneous, correct decisions. However, I have also demonstrated over the course of many videos that our intuitions could be problematic. The fast decisions could be driven by features of coherence and substitution, and we could be making many of these errors of judgment, biases of decision making, and our decisions, the first spontaneous decisions could be wrong. What should we do in such situations? We must also remember that there is another system of decision making which we call as the algorithmic way of decision making. Let's look at this question displayed on the screen, 17 into 24. Can you write the answer immediately? Well, at this moment, I don't know the number so I would need to do some calculations, I will need to do the multiplication and then I will come to the answer of 408. What happened? I had to take the decision, I had to come to a conclusion, but then I had to pause. I had to spend time and do the calculations to reach to this answer. This is the way or system of taking decisions which is called as algorithmic based decision making, algorithms are used to take decisions. What is important to recognize, that this is slow. Seventeen into 24 needs time to be calculated, it is deliberate, it has to be invoked. You have to consciously ask your brain to work on this problem and calculate the answer. It takes effort, it is effortful, it is organized. It has certain steps to be followed in order to reach to the answer, and it is very methodical. It has a set of algorithms that will be used to compute the answer. So there are two ways of taking decisions. One is what we call as the intuitions, the other one is the algorithmic based decision making. Then algorithms will step in only when you consciously involve them. When you realize that at this time I must be cautious, that this decision making or this problem my intuitions may lead me astray, my intuitions may not be right when it comes to taking decisions. In those situations when you do not know the right answer or you have a sense that your intuitions may not be correct, you have to augment your system 1 type of decision making, which is intuitive decision making with algorithms. You have to use algorithms, you have to use data, you should look out for more information. As we have been discussing in our earlier videos, that there is a need to rethink, take a pause, look at more evidence, and then use algorithms, methods to come to the right decision. One very good way to check your decision is what we call as pre-moterm. Just imagine that the decision that you implemented in whatever you were doing turned out to be wrong. You must ask yourself, what did I miss? If the decision that I'm going to implement, if that turns out to be wrong, what could be the possible reasons for that decision to go wrong? That may motivate you to look for more information, and this is what we call as pre-mortem. Don't do a postmortem of your decision, do a pre-mortem. Ask yourself, is there any information that I am missing? Is there any information that I need to look at? That may help you in augmenting your intuitions with algorithms and your decision making maybe better. Remember there is a system 1 which is fast, intuitive decision making, but there is also system 2 and your intuitions can be wrong. While there are experts who can take intuitive decisions, but there are also many biases that are associated with the intuitions. You must always think of augmenting your intuitions with data and algorithms. Thank you. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:08 pm | |
| [MUSIC] Hello learner. In this video, we will learn about developing skilled intuitions. In an earlier video, I had talked about the two systems of decision making, System 1 which is intuitive decision making. System 2 which is algorithmic decision making. We had also discussed that system one decision making could be right in some cases, in cases of experts, but it could also be driven by biases. Intuitions can be problematic. We have been learning that there are different biases that impact the automatic spontaneous decisions. Now, let's think about how can we build skilled intuitions. Intuitions can be right, intuitions could also be wrong. And under what circumstances should we believe our intuitions? What is the characteristic of those experts who can take spontaneous decisions, but they are correct? What is it that is there with Sherlock Holmes? hat is it that is there with Viswanathan and grandmasters? What is there with those firefighters who could look at the situation and then be able to recognize what's the right thing to do. And that is what we call as skilled intuitions. The first thing about developing skilled intuition is that whatever you are looking at the situation about which you want to take a decision, it should first present enough regularity that can be learned. There should be enough cues that one can practice over time and develop intuitions about. Now, when it comes to the chessboard, we all recognize that there are specific patterns and there are limited patterns that can be learned over time. Similarly, there are buildings on fire. They present enough regularity that somebody can look at it over time again and again and practice them and learn them. The same thing is with the crime scenes. There are specific sets of regularity that can be associated with them. So the first thing to remember is the event or the situation for which you are trying to develop intuitions should present some regularity. Now, a very nice example to demonstrate things where finding patterns is difficult. And the most prominent example where finding pattern is very difficult is a stock market. Stock markets are actually random, especially in the short term. It is very difficult to predict how the market is going to do tomorrow day after and so on. So, in those cases, no matter how much you look at the market, it is very difficult we are unable to predict what's going to happen tomorrow towards stock market, elections, economic environment. These are examples of environments that are very difficult to predict, which do not give us patterns that can be learned. In those cases, pundits are only as good as you are. You may say that something, it's pure luck, it is random. So the first condition is, there are some patterns that can be learned. There are patterns on offer. The second, obviously you would understand intuition is nothing but pattern recognition. If there are patterns, then one must be motivated enough to practice. One, you will need to spend time, you will need to invest time and energy to practice it. It is not to say that grandmasters are born overnight. We don't say that grandmaster is born overnight. Sherlock Holmes is made overnight. These people have invested a lot of time and effort in learning those patterns. So don't get swayed ever by people who say that I take intuitive decision making and I'm right. Well, those people may have invested a lot of time learning those patterns. The third, but I want to remind you of the two selves that we have been talking about. The quick reactionary, believing self, like the ego. And the other one, which is cool, reflective, thoughtful and pays attention. You've got to remind yourself that when it comes to practice, you have to practice mindfully. You have to practice with awareness and attention. If you are distracted and you are driven by the ego, that's the first self that we are talking about. No, no matter how much time you are looking at the pattern in front of you, you may actually not be paying attention. So, when it comes to learning those patterns, you have to invest time. All right, but you must also do it mindfully. This is a quote that I would want to remind you of Sherlock Holmes and he says, “how much an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came his way.” Remember observant man, a mindful person. So there has to be patterns, those patterns have to be learned, you must invest time. And you must learn those mindfully, you will have to pay attention and that is where talent comes in. Many people start playing chess, many people start playing cricket, not everybody becomes a Vishwanathan. And not everybody becomes a Sachin Tendulkar, you have to invest time first and you have to invest time mindfully with awareness and that is what makes us great in our decisions. That is what makes us great in our daily life. So overall remember there are systems, there is an intuition based system of making decision, but that could be skilled, that could also be unskilled. And it is important to be forewarned, because if you are careful then you are also forearmed. So be aware, think carefully, look at the data, build your skilled institutions and then take the decision. Thank you very much. [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:09 pm | |
| Hello, learner. In this video, we will start with a new topic, which we call as supportive communication. Now, as a leader, communication is a must. Communication is essential if we have to communicate our message. With the subordinates, we have to communicate effectively. When we are leading teams, when we are leading a group of individuals, it becomes extremely important that we learn some of the specifics, some of the aspects of supportive communication. How do we lead our team members in a way that they feel nice about the whole thing while they are being led. In this video, let us start to look at some of the essential ideas of supportive communication. Now, let us start by looking at this caselet, which describes a situation between Prakash Mehta and Chandresh Desai. This is a caselet which describes Prakash Mehta, who is a new manager, who has been newly appointed, he goes and visits the shop floor, and Chandresh Desai is the person who is managing the shop floor. So Prakash Mehta goes and pays a visit and there is an interaction, there is a communication, there is a conversation that happens between Prakash Mehta and Chandresh Desai. I would want you to, as you read this conversation, you've got to think about what went right in the communication and what went wrong. What are some of the problems that this communication, that this conversation possesses? What are some of the good things that may have happened? But more importantly, what are some of the missing aspects from this communication? I want you to take your notes, read the caselet, think about it, and make some observations in the notebook. Now once you have read the caselet, once you have analyzed the whole situation, we can look at that there are some important, some glaring issues that happen from both sides, Prakash Mehta's side and Chandresh Desai's side. The first thing, let's look at how does Prakash communicate with Chandresh. Now, as soon as Prakash goes and meets Chandresh, he goes there with a lot of preconceived notions, with a lot of pre-determined ideas of what is all that is going wrong at Chandresh's shop floor, Chandresh's factory. There are judgments. Prakash Mehta makes judgments about being too chummy with the females, not wearing a tie at the shop floor and the factory not being very clean. There is a power distance that we see very clearly. As soon as they meet, Chandresh says, “well, you are just another supervisor who has come here to pass judgments and to criticize. There is going to be a lot of criticism,” and that is exactly what Prakash Mehta does. He starts by criticizing. There is no appreciation. There was no appreciation of what is perhaps good that Chandresh is doing. But no, there are criticisms one after the other. But essentially, if you were to ask me, there is only one important thing that he should have said, which is about maybe the reports not being done properly. Other things were actually trivial, other things were actually maybe not worth being talked about, especially in the first meeting. From Chandresh's side, we see there is closure to feedback, there is resistance. When you have a subordinate like this, it becomes all the more important for the leader to reflect on how he or she is going to communicate. We see when we talk about communication, I would want you to think about this important adjective before communication, which is supportive communication. This important word actually denotes that as leaders and supervisors, we've got to communicate in a way which builds the relationship that we have with our subordinates. Communication is not just about message delivered. Communication is also about building relationships. And if we don't communicate in a way, which is building relationships, then we are having a problem in our offices, in our factories, and so on. You got to remember there could be many, many difficult issues that you may have to tackle. At that time, the way you communicate, the kind of words you use becomes extremely important to reflect on. Even when you are giving a feedback, you have to give a feedback, but you have to also preserve the relationship. A supportive communication is empowering. When we communicate, people should feel empowered to do things rather than being constrained. This conversation between Prakash and Chandresh shows that the subordinate feels so constrained by the way the supervisor is communicating. So remember, friends, when we talk about communication, it is about building positive energy. It is about creating relationships that can deliver better performance, faster problem-solving, leads to higher outputs, and most importantly, stronger relationships at the workplace. We've got to think about communication, not just as delivering messages, but also building relationships and developing positive energy at the workplace. Thank you. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:11 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video, we'll discuss the first element of supportive communication, which is listening. Let us start with an exercise. I want you to reflect on a good communicator. Anybody in your life at office or at home whom you think is a good communicator, whom you find nice talking to. Reflect on how do you communicate? How does that person communicate? You've got to maybe observe that individual as well as, you should also observe how you communicate when you are talking to somebody else. Think of a situation when you are in a conversation with someone else, when you talk to the person, try this exercise on yourself. When you communicate to somebody else, listen intently, as if you have to repeat what the other person is saying. That's the second exercise. The first exercise was “observe and reflect on a good communicator whom you think you feel very comfortable about.” The second exercise is, when you communicate, you listen carefully and then you have to pay so much attention that you can even repeat what the other person said to you. Now try this out and think of some observations, some reflections that you have. If you can make it, you can think about writing it down right away or you can do it at a later point. Now, one of the principles of supportive communication is what we call as listening. Listening is the first and the most important element of being a good communicator. We actually say that if you have to be good at communication, you have to be an exceptional listener. Now the two exercises that I asked you to think about, the first one, observing a good communicator, and the second one yourself, when you are in a conversation, you listen intently as if you have to repeat what the other person is saying. You will see that in both these situations, the aspect of listening plays a very important role in driving good communication. The first thing that listening actually brings is, it enables us to pay attention. Remember in our earlier videos, we've talked about that the mind or the brain cannot multitask? We have also said that if you have to do something well, you have to pay attention. Live in the present moment. This is actually the same thing. Listening is actually playing on the same principle that we have to pay attention if we have to respond effectively. Only if you can pay attention can you be a good communicator. It is also said that when we talk about listening, we must first understand. Listen with an intent to understand the other person and then to be understood. Before you speak something, you have to make an attempt to actually understand what the other person is saying, and in order to do that, you have to listen. You have to pay attention. If you cannot stop talking, there is only one golden rule to be a good listener, and I always say, it is “stop talking.” You have to stop talking in order to be able to listen what the other person is saying and pay your undivided attention. If you can pay that attention, if you can give that attention, you will be better in asking questions rather than asking trivial or unnecessary questions. If you are paying attention, you will be able to better understand the situation and ask better questions. Rather than thinking that or believing that people should listen to you, if you have to communicate well, if you have to be good at supportive communication, your first aim should be to understand, to listen to what the other person is saying. If you can listen, it gives you a chance to maybe understand the other person's position, which we actually call as empathy. Empathy can only come when we can listen, when we can pay attention to what the other person is saying. Stop arguing, stop criticizing, pay attention, try to understand. That may help you empathize and better understand the other person's position. Let us go back to the caselet that we discussed in our earlier video between Prakash Mehta and Chandrish Desai. Just go back and read the conversation again and look at the listening principle being applied to that communication. Actually it is missing. Prakash Mehta did not listen to what Chandrish Desai was trying to tell him rather he was there as if, “you’ve got to listen to me, I'm here to say, these are four bullet points that I want to talk about, I want to criticize you.” There is no listening that is being done. Chandrish had some explanations, but Prakash just kept dismissing and then went on to the second point, the third point, and so on. There is no empathy at display. There is no understanding at the display, there is a lot of criticism and a lot of arguments that go on in that communication. Please understand listening is that quality, is that principle of communication that helps us look at the other person's side of things. It enables us to understand what the other person is trying to say. It enables us to empathize, to maybe look at things, what they are trying to say in a better perspective. Lastly, remember if you have to be a good listener, let the other person do a great deal of talking. Stop talking to both on the outside as well as on the inside. Only if you can stop talking you can be a good listener. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:12 pm | |
| Hello, learner. In this video, we will talk about the second principle of supportive communication, which is being non-judgmental. We are exceptional at passing judgments about others. When we communicate, we are very quick to jump onto judgments. We say that this person did this right or wrong. This person is like this, this person is like that. In our earlier videos, we talked about decision-making biases. How jumping to quick decisions could be flooded with a lot of biases, with a lot of errors. The same thing can happen in communications. When we are making passing statements, then we are framing our statements that we will speak with others, it becomes extremely important to be careful about judgments. In this video, I'll talk about three important aspects of being non-judgmental, which can help us save ourselves, which can help us step back from the judgments, and make better communication. Be better at the communications that we do with others. The first element of being non-judgmental is being descriptive. When we describe a situation, we focus on what has happened, what is it that can be done to improve this situation. When we are descriptive we say, here is what has happened. Here is my reaction. Here is a suggestion that can help improve the situation rather than jumping onto the judgment that you are good or you are bad and you did this right or wrong. It is important when there is something that goes wrong or when you think that there is something that has happened, rather than being judgmental, try being descriptive. Let me show you an example. One way of responding to the situation would be that you are extremely bad at customer relations, you don't know the job. The other way could be, three clients have complained to me this month that you have not responded to their request. I'm worried that this could threaten our relationships with them and they could go somewhere else. We need to win back their confidence. Now you see this is very, very clear, describing what has happened, what I think about the situation, and what can be done to improve this situation. Remember, be descriptive rather than being judgmental. The second. Always be problem-oriented rather than person-oriented. It is a cliched saying, and so it's a very common saying: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” We've got to move away from people. Focus on the problem. Tell them what's the issue, how can we solve a particular problem rather than saying because of you, this problem exists. Now you see the second statement which is more person-focused. The first one is problem focus, which says, well, this is the problem and we got to solve this particular problem. The third is be specific. Do not talk in terms of general things. Do not generalize things, universalize things. Talk about specific things that you believe should be corrected. Focus on what are the specific attitudes or behaviors that you may want to be improved by the other person. What are the specific elements of performance that need to be improved? Rather than saying, well, everything is bad about you. Everything is not good about this situation. Everything is not good about this specific event. The example is, well, “you interrupted me three times in this conversation” rather than saying “you’re always try to get attention.” You see the second statement is more judgmental. Let's go back to the caselet that we have been talking about between Prakash Mehta and Chandresh Desai. While both are judgmental, Chandresh Desai is also judgmental, He judges Prakash and says, “well, you always do these things you criticize, etc.” But we should all think about this situation from the shoes of Prakash Mehta: as leaders, as people who have to lead subordinates. What is it that we can do? Look at what Prakash does while he has a bigger responsibility as a leader to motivate Chandresh, what does he do? Rather than talking about specifics, rather than talking about the problems, he talks about, “well, Chandresh you do this, people see you like this.” It's more person-oriented. You don't wear a tie, you are too chummy with females, and so on and so forth. There is no appreciation. It's all very global. Everything is bad with the shop floor, everything is dirty, and all reports are wrong, etc. There are mistakes that are being pointed out even unnecessarily as we have talked in an earlier video. We see Prakash passing a lot of judgments. When we judge people, people become closed in that communication. It is no more empowerment, it is no more supportive, and that is a problem. Elements of a good non-judgemental communication is please postpone the judgments as much as you can. Look at the data, give yourself time to look at the evidence. That's the only way we can overcome judgments. Listen carefully to what people are trying to say. Look at the evidence that can disconfirm your hypothesis, disconfirm your beliefs, and try to empathize. Only when you can look at the data when you can listen carefully then you give yourself a chance to empathize with others. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:12 pm | |
| [MUSIC] Hello learner. In this video, we'll learn about the third important principle of supportive communication which we call as validating communication. Now there are two words when we talk about validating communication: validating and invalidating. Invalidating communication is a communication that conveys superiority, that conveys ego, that conveys arrogance, that conveys indifference to the other person. Whereas, validating communication, is that communication which conveys respect, dignity, appreciation, flexibility and open transparent two-way communication to the other person. When we communicate with people, we can either convey arrogance and indifference, or we can convey respect and flexibility in our communication. So in this video I'll talk about four qualities of validating communication which we must keep in mind as we communicate with our subordinates, as we communicate with people around us. The first one is affirming. Always find opportunities to appreciate and show respect to the other person. Begin with praise and honest appreciation when you are communicating. Try to give people a chance to say yes to you rather than saying no to you. Try to postpone the statement that, you are wrong. You must always begin with an honest effort to convey that you appreciate the point being made, that you appreciate the effort that is being put by the other person and that is what we call as affirm. Affirm, that means convey respect, convey appreciation to the other person. The second important aspect of validating communication is what we call as being conjunctive rather than disjunctive. Conjunctive is a word which means that you build on prior communication, rather than disjunctive which essentially means that you start to say things which are absolutely not related to what has been said prior. Always find opportunities and ways that you can build on the points that have been made by your team members, by your subordinates, rather than just saying things that have absolutely no connection, there's absolutely no relationship with what the other person is saying. Being disjunctive actually shows that you are absent minded or you are not paying attention, and that is actually a problem; that shows lack of interest of the leader in what the subordinate is trying to say. A good example is, relating to what you just said, I would like to raise this concern. On the other hand, say, well, I want to say this, irrespective of what you are saying, this is my point of view. So there is no relationship with what has been said prior. The third important aspect is accept as much as you can; acceptance of the other person rather than rejection. Focus on statements which convey respect, flexibility and areas of agreement. You've got to find out ways to actually agree. That actually shows that there is an effort being made by you, the leader, to go forward and see some middle ground in what is being said. Talk in terms of people’s interest, talk in terms of the ideas that people are trying to build up, rather than just saying what you think is important. Try to involve people. And we have seen in earlier videos when we were talking about empowering behavior, we said consulting is a very important aspect of empowerment. So try to take people's suggestions on board, give them a chance to voice opinions rather than just shutting them up and not listening to what they are saying. So, the last thing of validating communication is clarifying: giving people enough clarity of “What's the issue? What is it that you expect from them?” I would like to show you this chart, which comes from a piece of research that says that leaders should give enough clarity--which is not too much because if it is too much, it becomes micromanaging, so you are telling them each and every thing, and if it is too less, then it means you are not interested or you are indifferent, you are not paying attention or you don't want to give attention to the other person. The sweet spot is somewhere in between, and that is most empowering. So empowerment and clarity is actually an inverted U-curve, high clarity is micromanaging, not so empowering, low clarity is also disempowering because it just doesn't convey enough information. Coming back to the caselet that we have been talking about, Prakash Mehta and Chandresh Desai, I look at how invalidating the entire conversation was. Prakash Mehta just kept saying things that came to his mind and rejecting what Chandresh was trying to say. There was no respect, dignity that was being communicated, there was no appreciation that was being communicated, there was no clarity in the whole thing as to what Prakash Mehta actually wants changed. It was like a fault-finding mission that was being carried out, and the last, which is most disappointing, is disjunctive. Irrespective of what Chandresh was saying, he was just jumping from one point to another, not building on the conversation. I had four points to raise, here I am to raise those four points irrespective of what you are saying. So it is very important to remember that when we talk about communication which is validating, it is about affirming, it is about clarifying, it is about being conjunctive, and it is about accepting rather than rejecting. And validating communications are extremely important when it comes to empowerment and supportive communication. Thank you very much. [MUSIC] | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:12 pm | |
| Hello learner. In this video, we’ll talk about the fourth principle of supportive communication, which is being authentic. As the word authentic signifies, it is about leading by example, it is about being truthful, it is about owning up the conversation that you are having. We’ll look at three important aspects of authentic communication. The first one is being accountable, walking the talk, leading with accountability. What does accountability mean when it comes to communication? The first thing is you must ensure that you have kept the promises that you have made. You should show things that you have promised in action, you should have--whatever you have committed, you must show that it is implemented. A lot of times as leaders, we do not own up our own mistakes, our own shortcomings. Another aspect of accountability is owning up the mistakes, leading by example, showing that you are honest and sincere enough to even accept that you have made a mistake. If there is something wrong, admit it, and be humble and open enough to say that, yes, you have made that mistake. First of all, make all the efforts to actually follow through on the promises that you have made in whatever communication you've had. The second, is always tell the truth, do not manipulate. Honesty is a very important aspect of communication. Try to be as truthful in the communication as you can be. If there is something that upsets you, tell people frankly that this is something I do not like, this is not what I would like to happen in my office rather than ignoring it and then not communicating the right thing. The last thing about authentic communication is own your communication. If there is something that you do not like, do not speak in third person, that because of those people, because of some other reasons, this will not happen. If you think there's something that needs to be done, then own up. This is, speak in the first person. Say, “this is what I like and this is what I don't like.” Remember in an earlier video, when we were talking about leadership, I had talked about authenticity as a very important aspect of leadership. I had said at that time that as a leader you will need to have courage. When you lead by example, you lead by example and courage as well. So if there is something that you don't like, you've got to communicate it. You've got to be courageous enough to say that this is what I don't like. Don't give people the impression that you are okay with something, but there are other things, those other people may not like what is going to happen. That brings authenticity. Owning up conversations shows passion, shows that you are interested or disinterested in a particular thing. Then we look at Prakash Mehta and Chandresh Desai. Actually, I would say that this is one place where Prakash Mehta does well. He uses 'I,' he demonstrates that. He does not say that “well, management does not like this Chandresh.” He was talking in terms of first-person; that shows that he was willing to take a stand and say that this is something I do not accept or I do not like. There is something that is important when we communicate and that is the principle of authenticity, which becomes extremely important when we are talking, conversing, and displaying support in our communication. Thank you very much. | |
| | | شادي منصور
الدولة : فلسطين المساهمات : 64 تاريخ التسجيل : 26/01/2024 العمر : 38
| موضوع: رد: Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias 1/28/2024, 5:13 pm | |
| [MUSIC] Hello learner. In this video, we'll try to put everything together that we have been talking about in earlier videos. And we'll talk about fundamental techniques of handling people. If you remember in earlier videos, we've talked about decision making biases. When we were looking at decision making, we said that there are two important features that impact how we take decisions. The feature of attribute substitution and the feature of associative coherence. Both of these features lead to certain decision making biases. When we take spontaneous automatic quick decisions, these features can actually impact our decisions and lead to certain errors. We defined that when it comes to decision making, there are two important systems that exist in us. The first one is what we call as System 1, which is intuitive decision making. Intuition we defined as the element of pattern recognition. We also discussed that there are experts who can take quick spontaneous decisions and those decisions are right. They are extremely good at taking quick split of a second decision. And those decisions often go through very well. On the other hand, there are decisions that are fretted with many biases. So we discussed that there are skilled intuitions and unskilled intuitions. As leaders, one of the fundamental techniques of handling people is to recognize that we may have skilled intuitions about few things. We may also have unskilled intuitions about many things. If we have to decide when we should trust our intuitions, we must remind ourselves that intuitions are nothing more and nothing less than pattern recognition. You must be able to recognize the patterns and those patterns you've practiced and learned over time. If you have not learned those patterns, if you have not seen those patterns, then your decision making could actually be wrong. And therefore, it is important at that point in time to build on your System 2 of decision making. You must complement your intuitions with System 2 and System 2 is nothing but data based, evidence based, algorithmic decision making. You must remind yourself that this could be a situation that I am not familiar with. And so before I trust my intuition and take a decision, let me look at the evidence. You are giving yourself a better chance of taking decisions, chance at taking better decisions, more correct decisions if you are complimenting your intuitions with System 2, which is data, evidence, and algorithms. So if you have to remember, please, when we deal with people, we must not rely on memory. Our memory could be biased, our intuitions could be biased. Look for more data, look for disconfirming evidence. Don't try to look for evidence that supports your hypothesis. Make an effort to look for disconfirming evidence and remember past sunk cost may not be the best thing to base your decision on. You've got to think about the future investments, the incremental investments that you have to make on a particular topic, on a particular decision. Remember, our intuitions could be unskilled and we must bank on algorithms and data. That's about decision making and overcoming decision making biases. Using this information about decision making biases, we should remember that our communication could be impacted by these biases of decision making. What we communicate is an action. We do something because we have spoken out certain words and that's an action. And when you have spoken those words, those words cannot be undone. There is a very nice saying that says “a fool thinks after he or she speaks and an intelligent person thinks before he or she speaks.” So once you have communicated, once you have spoken the words, well, there is nothing much you can do about. So, prior to speaking, communicating, you must remember principles of supportive communication. Communication is built on listening, listening to understand rather than being understood. You've got to understand what the other person is trying to tell you. You've got to postpone the judgments as much as you can. Try to be descriptive, problem oriented, and specific, rather than being global, person oriented and judgmental. Also when you talk to others and talk about certain ideas, please show validation. Please be accepting, clear in your communication. Build on these statements or conversation that has happened before rather than being disjunctive and try to affirm; showcase an honest appreciation. If you don't do that, you will be invalidating, and that's showing disrespect to the other person. And lastly, be authentic, own up your conversation. Speak in the first person, show courage and say this is something that I don't like. This is what I would like to be done and be accountable. If you have made certain promises, if you have committed to certain things, try to follow them up through your actions rather than just words. So it is very important when we are building relationships, communication plays a very important role. Decision making plays a very important role. When we communicate, our communication should be empowering. Communication should be supportive and communication should be such that it builds positive energy and strengthens relationships. Communication is not just about message delivered. Communication is also about strengthening relationships between the two parties. Thank you very much. [MUSIC] | |
| | | | Associative Coherence and Decision-Making Bias | |
|
| صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
|