[[ copy & paste selected text from
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
titled:
Bias, Blindness and How We Truly Think (Part 3):
inside the file
]]
In many situations, however, the boundary between good and bad is a reference point that changes over time and depends on the immediate circumstances.
Loss aversion refers to the relative strength of two motives: We are driven more strongly to avoid losses than to achieve gains. A reference point is sometimes the status quo, but it can also be a goal in the future: not achieving a goal is a loss; exceeding it is a gain.
If you are set to look for it, the asymmetric intensity of the motives to avoid losses and to achieve gains shows up almost everywhere. It is an ever-present feature of negotiations, especially of renegotiations of an existing contract, the typical situation in labor negotiations, and in international discussions of trade or arms limitations. Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements difficult to reach.
Negotiations over a shrinking pie are especially difficult because they require an allocation of losses. People tend to be much more easy going when they bargain over an expanding pie.
A biologist observed that “when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner almost always wins the contest -- usually within a matter of seconds.”
As initially conceived, plans for reform almost always produce many
winners and some losers while achieving an overall improvement.
If the affected parties have any political influence, however, potential losers will be more active and determined than potential winners; the outcome will be biased in their favor and inevitably more expensive and less effective than initially planned.
The familiar rule that possession is nine-tenths of the law confirms the moral status of the reference point. If people who lose suffer more than people who merely fail to gain, they may also deserve more protection from the law.
source:
the amygdala, which has a primary role as the “threat center” of the brain, although it is also activated in other emotional states.
Bad Is Stronger
The brains of humans contain a mechanism that is designed to give priority to bad news. No comparably rapid mechanism for recognizing good news has been detected. Threats are privileged above opportunities,
In a paper titled, “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” some scholars summarized the evidence: “Bad emotions, bad parents and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than good. The self is more motivated to avoid bad self-definitions than to pursue good ones. Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones.”
In many situations, however, the boundary between good and bad is a reference point that changes over time and depends on the immediate circumstances.
Loss aversion refers to the relative strength of two motives: We are driven more strongly to avoid losses than to achieve gains. A reference point is sometimes the status quo, but it can also be a goal in the future: not achieving a goal is a loss; exceeding it is a gain.
If you are set to look for it, the asymmetric intensity of the motives to avoid losses and to achieve gains shows up almost everywhere. It is an ever-present feature of negotiations, especially of renegotiations of an existing contract, the typical situation in labor negotiations, and in international discussions of trade or arms limitations. Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements difficult to reach.
Negotiations over a shrinking pie are especially difficult because they require an allocation of losses. People tend to be much more easy going when they bargain over an expanding pie.
A biologist observed that “when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner almost always wins the contest -- usually within a matter of seconds.”
As initially conceived, plans for reform almost always produce many
winners and some losers while achieving an overall improvement.
If the affected parties have any political influence, however, potential losers will be more active and determined than potential winners; the outcome will be biased in their favor and inevitably more expensive and less effective than initially planned.
When Richard Thaler, Jack Knetsch and I studied public perceptions of what constitutes unfair behavior on the part of merchants, employers and landlords, we found that the moral rules by which the public evaluates what companies may or may not do draw a crucial distinction between losses and gains.
The basic principle is that the existing wage, price or rent sets a reference point, which has the nature of an entitlement that must not be infringed. It is considered unfair for the company to impose losses on its customers or workers relative to the reference transaction, unless it must do so to protect its own entitlement.
The familiar rule that possession is nine-tenths of the law confirms the moral status of the reference point. If people who lose suffer more than people who merely fail to gain, they may also deserve more protection from the law. [[ as applied to abortion, once you have, and then you loose it, then it is even more painful (hurt, bad, ouchie) than when you never had in the first place. ]]
sub-source:
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-2-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-4-daniel-kahneman
filename: bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-kahneman.pdf
Bias-Blindness-and-How-We-Truly-Think-Kahneman.pdf
____________________________________
‘’•─“”
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
titled:
Bias, Blindness and How We Truly Think (Part 3):
inside the file
]]
In many situations, however, the boundary between good and bad is a reference point that changes over time and depends on the immediate circumstances.
Loss aversion refers to the relative strength of two motives: We are driven more strongly to avoid losses than to achieve gains. A reference point is sometimes the status quo, but it can also be a goal in the future: not achieving a goal is a loss; exceeding it is a gain.
If you are set to look for it, the asymmetric intensity of the motives to avoid losses and to achieve gains shows up almost everywhere. It is an ever-present feature of negotiations, especially of renegotiations of an existing contract, the typical situation in labor negotiations, and in international discussions of trade or arms limitations. Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements difficult to reach.
Negotiations over a shrinking pie are especially difficult because they require an allocation of losses. People tend to be much more easy going when they bargain over an expanding pie.
A biologist observed that “when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner almost always wins the contest -- usually within a matter of seconds.”
As initially conceived, plans for reform almost always produce many
winners and some losers while achieving an overall improvement.
If the affected parties have any political influence, however, potential losers will be more active and determined than potential winners; the outcome will be biased in their favor and inevitably more expensive and less effective than initially planned.
The familiar rule that possession is nine-tenths of the law confirms the moral status of the reference point. If people who lose suffer more than people who merely fail to gain, they may also deserve more protection from the law.
source:
the amygdala, which has a primary role as the “threat center” of the brain, although it is also activated in other emotional states.
Bad Is Stronger
The brains of humans contain a mechanism that is designed to give priority to bad news. No comparably rapid mechanism for recognizing good news has been detected. Threats are privileged above opportunities,
In a paper titled, “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” some scholars summarized the evidence: “Bad emotions, bad parents and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than good. The self is more motivated to avoid bad self-definitions than to pursue good ones. Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones.”
In many situations, however, the boundary between good and bad is a reference point that changes over time and depends on the immediate circumstances.
Loss aversion refers to the relative strength of two motives: We are driven more strongly to avoid losses than to achieve gains. A reference point is sometimes the status quo, but it can also be a goal in the future: not achieving a goal is a loss; exceeding it is a gain.
If you are set to look for it, the asymmetric intensity of the motives to avoid losses and to achieve gains shows up almost everywhere. It is an ever-present feature of negotiations, especially of renegotiations of an existing contract, the typical situation in labor negotiations, and in international discussions of trade or arms limitations. Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements difficult to reach.
Negotiations over a shrinking pie are especially difficult because they require an allocation of losses. People tend to be much more easy going when they bargain over an expanding pie.
A biologist observed that “when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner almost always wins the contest -- usually within a matter of seconds.”
As initially conceived, plans for reform almost always produce many
winners and some losers while achieving an overall improvement.
If the affected parties have any political influence, however, potential losers will be more active and determined than potential winners; the outcome will be biased in their favor and inevitably more expensive and less effective than initially planned.
When Richard Thaler, Jack Knetsch and I studied public perceptions of what constitutes unfair behavior on the part of merchants, employers and landlords, we found that the moral rules by which the public evaluates what companies may or may not do draw a crucial distinction between losses and gains.
The basic principle is that the existing wage, price or rent sets a reference point, which has the nature of an entitlement that must not be infringed. It is considered unfair for the company to impose losses on its customers or workers relative to the reference transaction, unless it must do so to protect its own entitlement.
The familiar rule that possession is nine-tenths of the law confirms the moral status of the reference point. If people who lose suffer more than people who merely fail to gain, they may also deserve more protection from the law. [[ as applied to abortion, once you have, and then you loose it, then it is even more painful (hurt, bad, ouchie) than when you never had in the first place. ]]
sub-source:
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-2-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-3-daniel-kahneman
bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-4-daniel-kahneman
filename: bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-kahneman.pdf
Bias-Blindness-and-How-We-Truly-Think-Kahneman.pdf
____________________________________
‘’•─“”
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
____________________________________
*2 “This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.”
──From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations
(Ackoff's best : his classic writings on management, Russell L. Ackoff., © 1999, hardcover, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p.139)
“This [copy & paste reference note] is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is [archive] with the understanding that the [researcher, investigator] is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.”
──From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations
--
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher.
The W. Edwards Deming Institute. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States copyright act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
notice: Do not purchase this book with the hopes of curing cancer or any other chronic disease
We offer it for informative purposes to help cope with health situations and do not claim this book furnishes information as to an effective treatment or cure of the disease discussed ─ according to currently accepted medical opinion.
Although it is your right to adopt your own dietary and treating pattern, never the less suggestions offered in this book should not be applied to a specific individual except by his or her doctor who would be familiar with individual requirements and any possible complication. Never attempt a lengthy fast without competent professional supervision.
____________________________________
*2 “This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.”
──From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations
(Ackoff's best : his classic writings on management, Russell L. Ackoff., © 1999, hardcover, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p.139)
“This [copy & paste reference note] is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is [archive] with the understanding that the [researcher, investigator] is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.”
──From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations
--
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher.
The W. Edwards Deming Institute. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States copyright act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
notice: Do not purchase this book with the hopes of curing cancer or any other chronic disease
We offer it for informative purposes to help cope with health situations and do not claim this book furnishes information as to an effective treatment or cure of the disease discussed ─ according to currently accepted medical opinion.
Although it is your right to adopt your own dietary and treating pattern, never the less suggestions offered in this book should not be applied to a specific individual except by his or her doctor who would be familiar with individual requirements and any possible complication. Never attempt a lengthy fast without competent professional supervision.
No comments:
Post a Comment