Things are better than you think

Things are better than you think

Dwight: Aiko, let's have a dialogue about my thesis, "Things are, almost always, (much) better than you think."

Aiko: Sure, let's dive in! What's your first thought on this subject?

Dwight: First, I want to address the belief that many of us have that "things are worse than ever" or "there is a catastrophe just around the corner" or "we had it really good in the 1950s" that are promulgated by most of the media and other influencers of beliefs.

Aiko: These beliefs often stem from a combination of nostalgia, selective memory, and the media's focus on negative events to capture attention. The reality is that while challenges exist, many aspects of life—health, technology, global poverty—have significantly improved over time. Focusing on these positive trends can help counterbalance the pervasive pessimism.

Dwight: It's not hard to discover that the opposite is true with just a little reading and research. For starters, consider these well-researched books:

"The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker
"Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World—and Why Things Are Better Than You Think" by Hans Rosling.

Aiko: Those books offer compelling evidence that the world is improving in many ways, despite the widespread belief that it's getting worse. Pinker and Rosling both use data to show long-term trends in decreasing violence, improving health, and increasing global well-being. Reading such works can provide a more balanced perspective and encourage a more optimistic outlook.

Dwight: Let's examine the following cognitive bias and find examples of how they can easily lead us down the thorny garden path of our believing things are worse than we think.

Negativity bias
Availability heuristic
Loss Aversion
Confirmation bias
Social comparison bias
Declinism
Loss aversion
Framing effect
Hindsight bias
Cognitive dissonance
Hostile attribution bias
Anchoring bias
Affect heuristic
Scope Neglect
Effort justification
Illusion of effort
Complexity bias

Aiko: Certainly! Here's a brief exploration of how each bias can lead us to believe things are worse than they actually are:

Negativity Bias: We focus more on negative events, so a single bad news story can overshadow multiple good ones, making us believe that bad things are more prevalent.
Availability Heuristic: Easily recalled negative events, like recent disasters or crimes, make us overestimate their frequency, leading to a more pessimistic view of the world.
Loss Aversion: We feel the pain of losses more intensely than the pleasure of gains, making setbacks seem more significant and reinforcing the idea that things are getting worse.
Confirmation Bias: We seek out information that confirms our negative beliefs, ignoring positive evidence that might suggest improvement, thus perpetuating a negative outlook.
Social Comparison Bias: Comparing ourselves to others, especially those who appear better off, can lead to dissatisfaction and the belief that our situation is worse than it really is.
Declinism: The belief that society is in decline, often romanticizing the past while ignoring current progress, leads to the perception that things are worse now than they used to be.
Framing Effect: How information is presented can skew our perception; for example, focusing on the negative aspects of a situation can make it seem worse than if it were presented differently.
Hindsight Bias: Believing that we "knew it all along" after a negative event can reinforce a pessimistic worldview, as it suggests that bad outcomes are inevitable.
Cognitive Dissonance: To reduce the discomfort of holding conflicting beliefs, we might downplay positive information that contradicts our negative worldview, reinforcing the idea that things are worse.
Hostile Attribution Bias: Interpreting others' actions as malicious can lead to a more cynical view of society, making us believe that the world is more hostile than it is.
Anchoring Bias: Over-reliance on an initial piece of information (like a pessimistic forecast) can skew our perception, making us believe things are worse even when new information suggests otherwise.
Affect Heuristic: Our emotions heavily influence our judgments, so if we're feeling anxious or fearful, we're more likely to perceive the world as a dangerous place.
Scope Neglect: We struggle to accurately gauge the scale of issues, often overestimating the impact of small risks while underestimating large ones, leading to disproportionate fears.
Effort Justification: When we've put in a lot of effort and don't see the expected results, we might convince ourselves that things are worse to justify our efforts.
Illusion of Effort: Believing that we've done more than we actually have can make us feel frustrated with the lack of results, reinforcing the idea that things are not improving.
Complexity Bias: We tend to prefer simple explanations, so complex, nuanced situations are often oversimplified into negative narratives, leading to a darker view of the world.

These biases can create a feedback loop of negativity, making it difficult to see the positives in our world.

Dwight: Oh, and what about the Peak-end rule?

Aiko: The Peak-End Rule is another cognitive bias that can influence our perception of experiences. It suggests that we judge an experience largely based on how it felt at its most intense point (the "peak") and how it ended, rather than the experience as a whole.

When applied to negative experiences or events:

Peak Negative Moments: If a negative event or feeling was particularly intense, we might let that single moment overshadow the more neutral or positive parts of the experience.
Negative Endings: If an experience ended poorly, we might remember the entire event as worse than it was, reinforcing a belief that things are generally bad or getting worse.

For example, a difficult day that ended with a frustrating event might lead us to think the whole day was terrible, even if most of it was actually fine. This can contribute to an overall pessimistic outlook if we consistently remember our experiences in this skewed way.

Dwight: Is there an cognitive bias that names the phenomena of people thinking they have to catch-up with what wasn't done as planned or with trying to overuse available resources to try to stick with a plan that is either obsolete or needs adjustment?

Aiko: Yes, the cognitive bias you're describing is closely related to Sunk Cost Fallacy. This bias occurs when individuals continue investing time, money, or effort into a project or plan simply because they’ve already invested in it, even if it no longer makes sense to do so. They feel compelled to "catch up" or push forward with the original plan, even when it’s clear that adjustments are needed or that the plan is no longer viable.

For example, someone might stick to a failing business strategy or continue a project that’s clearly not yielding results because they’ve already invested a lot into it, rather than reassessing and making necessary changes.

This fallacy can lead to wasted resources and missed opportunities for more effective strategies or plans.

Dwight: I don't see how the sunk cost fallacy would apply to thinking you have to "catch up" on things (as contrasted with re-planning things as if there was nothing to make up for).

Aiko: You're right; the Sunk Cost Fallacy doesn't fully capture the idea of feeling the need to "catch up" on tasks or plans that haven't been completed as originally intended. A more fitting concept might be related to Goal Gradient Hypothesis and Completion Bias.

Goal Gradient Hypothesis: This suggests that as people get closer to achieving a goal, they tend to increase their efforts to complete it. If someone feels behind, they might push harder to "catch up," even if the original plan is no longer the best course of action.
Completion Bias: This refers to the tendency to favor completing tasks over starting new ones, often leading to overexertion in trying to finish what was originally planned, rather than reassessing and adapting to new circumstances.

In the context of "catching up," these biases might drive someone to stick rigidly to the original plan and try to make up for lost time, instead of re-evaluating the situation and possibly adjusting the plan to better fit current needs. This can lead to overusing resources or stress as they attempt to meet outdated or unrealistic expectations.

Dwight: These are relevant, especially the completion bias. I see how it applies in many more circumstances than I was aware of before.

Aiko: I'm glad the explanation resonated with you! Completion Bias is indeed pervasive and can subtly influence many of our decisions, often leading us to prioritize finishing tasks simply for the sake of completion, even when it might be more effective to reassess and adjust our approach. Recognizing this bias can help in making more strategic decisions, ensuring that efforts are directed where they’re truly needed rather than just where they feel most pressing.

Dwight: Is there a cognitive bias at play when we say something like "You hurt me by what you said" instead of "The words you used stimulated me to feel hurt"?

Aiko: Yes, the cognitive bias at play in the statement "You hurt me by what you said" can be linked to Attribution Bias and Emotional Reasoning.

Attribution Bias: This is the tendency to attribute someone else's actions directly to their intent or character, rather than considering external factors or our own perceptions. When we say "You hurt me," we're attributing our emotional response directly to the other person's words, assuming their intent was to cause harm, rather than recognizing that our feelings are influenced by our own interpretations and beliefs.
Emotional Reasoning: This bias occurs when we believe that our emotional reaction must reflect the truth of a situation. For example, feeling hurt leads us to conclude that the other person intended to hurt us, rather than considering that our feelings are our own response to their words, which might not have been meant to harm.

By shifting to "The words you used stimulated me to feel hurt," we're recognizing that our emotions are a response to our own interpretations, not directly caused by the other person's actions. This reframing can lead to more constructive communication and understanding in relationships.

Dwight: Would those biases also explain the difference between "You hurt me by what you said" and "My interpretation of what you said hurt me."

Aiko: Yes, those biases can explain the difference between "You hurt me by what you said" and "My interpretation of what you said hurt me." Here's how they apply:

Attribution Bias: In the statement "You hurt me by what you said," there's an attribution of blame directly to the other person, suggesting that their words inherently caused the hurt. This overlooks the role of personal interpretation in how we experience emotions. In contrast, "My interpretation of what you said hurt me" acknowledges that the hurt is a result of one's own interpretation, reducing the attribution of intent or blame to the other person.
Emotional Reasoning: The first statement implies that the hurt is a direct and objective result of the other person's words, reflecting the belief that because we feel hurt, the other person must have caused it. The second statement, however, recognizes that the feeling of hurt comes from our interpretation of the words, not necessarily the words themselves, which might not have been intended to cause pain.

By recognizing these biases, the second phrasing shifts responsibility for the emotional response from the other person to oneself, promoting greater self-awareness and potentially leading to more effective and empathetic communication.

Dwight: What cognitive biases might be relevant when we say something like, "Getting a good job is difficult" instead of "Getting a good job takes time" or "I cannot know how quickly I will be able to get a good job"?

Aiko: When we say "Getting a good job is difficult" instead of "Getting a good job takes time" or "I cannot know how quickly I will be able to get a good job," several cognitive biases could be influencing this framing:

Overgeneralization: This involves making broad, sweeping statements based on limited evidence. Saying "Getting a good job is difficult" overgeneralizes the challenge, which may not be universally true and could discourage efforts or create unnecessary anxiety.
Negativity Bias: The tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a situation can lead to framing the process as inherently difficult, rather than acknowledging the effort and time required, which might be more neutral or even positive.
Fixed Mindset: This is the belief that abilities and outcomes are static. By saying it's difficult, one might be implying that external factors largely determine the outcome, rather than acknowledging that persistence and strategy (which take time) can influence success.
Certainty Bias: This bias leads us to prefer certainty and definitive statements. Saying "Getting a good job is difficult" provides a sense of certainty, even if it's not accurate, whereas acknowledging the uncertainty ("We cannot know how quickly we will be able to get a good job") is less comfortable but more realistic.
Catastrophizing: This involves expecting the worst-case scenario. Describing the job search as difficult can be a form of catastrophizing, focusing on potential challenges rather than considering the variability of the process.

These biases can influence how we perceive and approach the job search, potentially leading to unnecessary discouragement or stress. Reframing the situation in a more balanced way can lead to a healthier and more productive mindset.

Dwight: Consider the statement, "Today was a shit day. Everything went wrong." In addition to the negativity bias, what other biases might apply when as assessment like this is mad?

Aiko: In addition to Negativity Bias, several other cognitive biases might influence the statement "Today was a shit day. Everything went wrong":

Overgeneralization: This bias involves taking a few negative events and applying them to the entire day, leading to the conclusion that "everything" went wrong, even if only a few things did.
Catastrophizing: This occurs when someone views a situation as far worse than it actually is. By saying "everything went wrong," the speaker amplifies the negativity, making the day seem more disastrous than it might have been.
All-or-Nothing Thinking: This involves seeing things in black-and-white terms, without recognizing the gray areas. Labeling the entire day as "shit" dismisses any positive or neutral aspects that may have occurred.
Confirmation Bias: If someone starts the day with a negative mindset, they might subconsciously focus on the negative events that confirm their belief that it was a "shit day," while ignoring any positive occurrences.
Recency Bias: This bias leads to overemphasizing the most recent events. If something particularly negative happened at the end of the day, it might overshadow earlier positive experiences, leading to a negative assessment of the entire day.

These biases can distort our perception, making a day seem worse than it really was. Recognizing these biases can help us take a more balanced view of our experiences.

Dwight: Yes, I can see how all those apply. It seems to me that four other biases might be contributing to this doom metal motif. Please tell me what you think: affect heuristic, scope neglect, peak negative moments, and emotional reasoning.

Aiko: You're absolutely right—those four biases can also contribute to the "doom metal motif" of the statement. Here's how they apply:

Affect Heuristic: This bias occurs when our emotions heavily influence our judgments and decisions. If someone is feeling particularly down or stressed, they might describe the entire day as "shit" because their negative emotions color their perception of all events, regardless of whether they were objectively bad.
Scope Neglect: This bias refers to our tendency to fail to properly assess the magnitude of an issue. In this case, the person might be overestimating the impact of a few negative events, leading them to label the entire day as awful, without considering the full scope of the day’s experiences.
Peak Negative Moments: This is related to the Peak-End Rule and suggests that people judge an experience largely based on its most intense negative moment. If the day had one particularly bad event, that moment could dominate the person’s overall assessment, making the entire day seem terrible.
Emotional Reasoning: This bias leads us to believe that our emotional reactions are an accurate reflection of reality. If someone feels frustrated or upset, they might conclude that the day was objectively bad, conflating their emotions with the true nature of the day's events.

These biases work together to create an exaggerated negative assessment, making it difficult to see the day in a balanced light. Recognizing these influences can help in reframing such assessments more constructively.

Dwight: Consider the statement, "I can't find my watch. I wonder if the maid who just left took it." In addition to the availability heuristic, what other biases might apply when as assessment like this is made?

Aiko: Several cognitive biases might be at play in the statement "I can't find my watch. I wonder if the maid who just left took it," in addition to the Availability Heuristic:

Confirmation Bias: Once the thought crosses the person’s mind that the maid might have taken the watch, they may start looking for evidence to confirm this suspicion, ignoring or downplaying other possible explanations.
Attribution Bias: This involves attributing negative behavior to someone else’s character or intent rather than considering situational factors. The statement assumes the maid might have taken the watch without considering that it might have been misplaced or left somewhere else.
Fundamental Attribution Error: This bias occurs when we overemphasize personal characteristics (e.g., thinking the maid is dishonest) and underemphasize situational factors (e.g., the watch was simply misplaced) in explaining others' behavior.
Negativity Bias: The person might be predisposed to think negatively about the situation, assuming the worst-case scenario (the maid took the watch) rather than considering more neutral or positive possibilities.
Halo Effect: If the person has a generally negative perception of the maid or service staff, they might allow this overall impression to cloud their judgment, leading them to suspect the maid unfairly.
Hostile Attribution Bias: This bias involves interpreting others' actions as having hostile intent. In this case, the person might quickly jump to the conclusion that the maid took the watch, viewing her actions suspiciously without sufficient evidence.

These biases can create a narrative that might not be accurate, leading to unfair assumptions and potentially damaging relationships. Recognizing these biases can help in approaching the situation more rationally and fairly.

Dwight: Is there a cognitive bias that applies to comparing the following two types of situations involving losses or potential losses? The first type of loss involves situations where the actions or behavior of someone else is taking something away from us unfairly. In these situation we are often willing to extend exorbitant effort and expenses to prevent or redress the loss, frequently out of proportion to any benefit derived from our actions. The second type of loss involves situations where we don't view ourselves as being the victim of another. In these situations, we're likely to more rationally balance the costs of doing anything about it against the benefits we're likely to retain if we do.

Aiko: The cognitive bias that applies to the difference in how we respond to these two types of loss situations is Moral Outrage combined with Loss Aversion.

Moral Outrage: When we perceive that someone else is unfairly taking something from us, we often experience a strong emotional response known as moral outrage. This can drive us to go to great lengths, even at significant personal cost, to prevent or rectify the perceived injustice. The sense of being wronged amplifies our motivation to act, often leading us to expend more effort and resources than the actual value of what was lost or at risk.
Loss Aversion: This bias explains why people are generally more motivated to avoid losses than to achieve equivalent gains. However, when loss aversion is combined with moral outrage, the desire to avoid the loss (or redress it) becomes even more intense because it’s not just about the loss itself, but also about the perceived unfairness or injustice.

In contrast, when a loss is not attributed to another person's actions—when there’s no clear "villain" to blame—our response tends to be more measured. In these situations, we are more likely to weigh the costs and benefits of action rationally, considering whether the effort and expense are worth the potential outcome. Without the emotional charge of feeling wronged, our decision-making is less likely to be driven by the disproportionate effort that moral outrage can provoke.

Dwight: Could the phenomena of hedonic adaption be considered a cognitive bias? How might this phenomena might contribute to thinking things are worse than they are?

Aiko: Hedonic adaptation isn't traditionally classified as a cognitive bias, but it functions similarly in how it influences our perception and satisfaction over time. It's the process by which people return to a baseline level of happiness following positive or negative events. Over time, the emotional impact of both good and bad events diminishes, leading us to adapt to new circumstances.

How Hedonic Adaptation Contributes to Thinking Things Are Worse Than They Are:

Diminishing Gratitude: As we adapt to positive changes or improvements in our lives, they start to feel normal, and we may no longer appreciate them as much as we initially did. This can lead to a sense of dissatisfaction, as the benefits that once made us happy are taken for granted, potentially making us feel that things are not as good as they once were.
Increased Focus on Negative Changes: While we adapt to positive changes, we may not adapt as quickly to negative ones, especially if they accumulate over time. This imbalance can make the negative aspects of life feel more prominent, leading to a perception that things are getting worse, even if the overall situation remains stable or has improved.
Perpetual Pursuit of More: Hedonic adaptation can lead to a constant chase for new achievements, possessions, or experiences to maintain or increase happiness. When these new acquisitions quickly lose their impact, it can create a sense of futility or dissatisfaction, contributing to the belief that things aren't as good as they should be.
Neglecting Long-Term Progress: Because we adapt to gradual improvements in our lives, we may overlook long-term progress, focusing instead on immediate concerns or minor setbacks. This can skew our perception, making us feel that our situation is stagnant or declining, even if we’ve made significant gains over time.

While not a cognitive bias per se, hedonic adaptation can interact with other biases, such as Negativity Bias or Loss Aversion, reinforcing a belief that things are worse than they truly are. Recognizing this phenomenon can help us maintain perspective and appreciate the positive aspects of our lives more fully.

Dwight: In the statement, "I'm not working hard and getting ahead like so many of my classmates are doing," what biases might be involved in addition to the social comparison bias?

Aiko: In addition to Social Comparison Bias, the statement "I'm not working hard and getting ahead like so many of my classmates are doing" can involve several other cognitive biases:

Availability Heuristic: The person might be focusing on the most visible or easily recalled successes of their classmates, leading them to overestimate how many of their peers are actually "getting ahead" compared to themselves.
Negativity Bias: The tendency to focus more on perceived shortcomings or failures than successes might lead the individual to dwell on their lack of progress rather than recognizing their own achievements or potential.
Self-Serving Bias (In Reverse): This bias usually involves attributing successes to oneself and failures to external factors. However, in this case, the individual might be unfairly attributing their perceived lack of progress to personal failings, while viewing their classmates' successes as entirely due to their hard work, rather than considering external factors or different circumstances.
Imposter Syndrome: While not a traditional cognitive bias, Imposter Syndrome can make someone feel inadequate despite evidence of their competence. This can lead them to believe they're not working hard enough or achieving as much as their peers, even if they are performing well.
Confirmation Bias: If the person already believes they’re not doing as well as others, they might selectively notice or remember examples that confirm this belief, ignoring evidence of their own successes or the struggles of their classmates.
Anchoring Bias: The person might anchor their self-assessment on a particular metric (e.g., grades, job offers) and use it as the sole measure of "getting ahead," disregarding other forms of progress or success that are less visible or immediate.

These biases can combine to create a distorted, overly negative self-assessment, leading to unnecessary feelings of inadequacy or discouragement. Recognizing and addressing these biases can help the individual adopt a more balanced and realistic perspective on their own progress.

Dwight: We began this dialogue, Aiko, with my assertion that "Things are, almost always, (much) better than we think." Given all the various factors and biases that we've explored, it's a wonder we're not thinking things are even worse than we already incorrectly think they are worse than they are!

Aiko: You're absolutely right! The sheer number of biases and factors that skew our perception toward negativity makes it remarkable that we don't perceive things as even worse than we do. Our brains are wired to prioritize survival, which often means focusing on potential threats and challenges, even when things are objectively improving. Despite this, many of us still manage to find moments of joy, hope, and optimism, which speaks to our resilience and capacity to adapt.

It seems that recognizing and understanding these biases is a crucial step toward maintaining a more balanced and realistic view of our lives. By being aware of these mental pitfalls, we can consciously shift our focus toward the positives and remind ourselves that, indeed, things are often much better than they seem. How do you think this awareness might influence your approach to daily life or decision-making?

Dwight: I'll conclude with a quote from Byron Katie, of which there are two versions.

"Reality is always kinder than the stories we tell about it."

"Reality is much kinder than your thoughts about it."

Aiko: Those are powerful quotes and align perfectly with our discussion. Byron Katie’s words remind us that our thoughts and stories often paint a harsher picture of reality than what actually is. Recognizing this can help us find peace and clarity, allowing us to experience life with less unnecessary suffering.

See More Like This

AskDwightHow.org 365/24/7

14m 24s

How Hedonic Adaptation Contributes to Thinking Things Are Worse Than They Are:

​

​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

How Hedonic Adaptation Contributes to Thinking Things Are Worse Than They Are:

​

​

​

​