Let’s explore how we can protect ourselves against these widely believed “hallucinations” or “Psychological Traps” that we discussed in the piece “How to Overcome Maya or the Matrix.

1. Confirmation Bias:

Confirmation bias is a psychological phenomenon where individuals favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and reject the information that does not.

We tend to seek out, interpret, remember, and share information in ways that affirm our preconceptions. This can lead to skewed perspectives and, often, poor decision-making.

The classic case of confirmation bias is our ABSOLUTE belief in our own religious dogmas.

It has led to so much pointless bloodshed and massacre that if the person doing it just thought about questioning it critically for once, they would have realized how absurd it was what they were doing.

CONFIRMATION BIAS is also the biggest enemy of all scientific progress. Because we only wish to see reality from the lens we prefer, not the lens that is accurate.

Mechanisms of Confirmation Bias

People are inclined to search for information or interpret evidence in ways that CONFIRM what they already believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Even when presented with the same information, individuals might interpret it in a way that supports their own views.

Finally, people tend to more easily recall information that confirms their beliefs than information that challenges them.

Historical Example: The Trial of Galileo

Galileo Galilei, the renowned Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer, was one of the pivotal figures in the scientific revolution. His support for heliocentrism, the model that posits the Sun at the center of the universe, put him at odds with the prevailing geocentric views supported by the Catholic Church, which held that the Earth was the center and immovable.

In 1610, Galileo strengthened his case for heliocentrism with his observations made through a telescope, a groundbreaking invention at the time. He observed phases of Venus and the moons orbiting Jupiter, which could not be explained by the traditional geocentric model. Despite this compelling evidence, the Church officials chose to focus on scriptures and interpretations that supported the Earth-centered universe. This selective acknowledgment of evidence is a classic display of confirmation bias.

The Church officials not only ignored or dismissed Galileo’s findings but also retaliated against him. In 1616, the Church formally declared heliocentrism to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical.” Galileo was warned to abandon his support for this theory. This situation escalated until 1633 when Galileo was tried by the Inquisition.

During his trial, Galileo faced judges who were deeply entrenched in the geocentric view. The evidence he presented was systematically scrutinized and interpreted through a lens that sought to disprove or diminish its validity. This bias was not just against the scientific evidence, but also rooted in the desire to maintain theological and doctrinal authority.

Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy” and forced to recant his views. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. This episode is a example of how confirmation bias—rooted in the human fear of uncertainty and change—can lead to the suppression of revolutionary ideas and stifle intellectual progress.

The story of Galileo teaches the importance of remaining open to new information and perspectives, especially those that challenge our deep-seated beliefs. To reduce confirmation bias, individuals and institutions can adopt practices like:

• Seeking out and listening to opposing views.
• Encouraging a culture of questioning and critical thinking.

Confirmation bias is a robust and pervasive effect that can distort our understanding of the world in subtle yet profound ways. By studying historical examples like Galileo’s trial, we can learn the dangers of this bias and better understand how to counteract its influence in our personal and professional lives.

2) Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias occurs when we focus on few “winners” who won, following a particular process, and assume the process to be the reason for the victory, while completely ignoring the vastly greater number of “losers” who lost following the SAME process.

Let us assume the classic example where it is assumed that persistence or, worse mere thinking and visualization leads to success.

For every person who has “succeeded” at a goal whose outcome is anyway out of their direct control through persistence, (for example wanting to becoming a popular movie star), there are thousands if not millions who have failed using the same approach.

Yet, it is portrayed and even sincerely believed that the only reason that person “succeeded” is because of their persistence and everyone else had no willpower and gave up too early.

Newsflash – there are millions of people who are literally “never giving up” till the day they die. And they pretty much get nothing to show for their “persistence”. Don’t tell me they had no willpower or that they quit too early.

A classic example of Persistence alone leading to success are generalized statements pushed by the likes of Light Bulb Tommy (Thomas Eddy’s Son) and Sir Hapoleon Nil (Whose actual insights on “success”, practically speaking were indeed close to Nil/Zero)

Far worse are those who claim they succeeded because of “visualizing their goals.”  This is the current nonsense spewed by motivational literature.

If 10,000 people visualize something and a few of the visualizers happen to achieve the goal, while 9995 did not, it does not mean visualization led to the goal being achieved. Probability dictates that somebody has to win. You happened to win and also happened to visualize. Don’t confuse correlation with causation or at least, don’t mislead everyone by spreading nonsense that your visualization led to your success.

There is a story about W. Clement Stone, a pupil of Sir Happy Nil, who also happened to be a multimillionaire via selling insurance. W. Clement Stone was once walking around, literally wearing a cape, declaring to everyone in his company that his huge bank balance was a result of his positive mental attitude.

One of the senior employees (Alan Weiss, who later became a legendary consultant in his own right) told him that he had a huge bank balance and that is why he had a positive mental attitude.

Weiss also said, if everyone in his company had a big bank balance, they too, at least to some extent, would have a positive mental attitude.

Of course, he was fired on the spot.

More Everyday Examples of Survivorship Bias:

-Entrepreneurs might look at thriving companies without considering the many startups that failed under similar circumstances. This can lead to an overly optimistic view of entering a market or adopting a business model that, statistically, holds higher risks of failure.

-Investors might be influenced by the most successful stories in the stock market, such as those who made fortunes from tech stocks, without considering the many who lost substantial sums. This could lead to risky investment strategies without a realistic assessment of potential downsides.

-In personal success, we often hear about individuals who dramatically rise to fame or fortune from humble beginnings and try to emulate their paths. However, for every one success story, there may be thousands who did not make it, not necessarily due to lack of effort or talent, but perhaps timing, luck, or other external factors.

Insight for Avoiding Survivorship Bias: To counteract survivorship bias, it is essential to:

Actively seek out information about those who did not make it to understand the full scope of any endeavor or historical account.

Whether evaluating past events, business strategies, or personal goals, consider both survivors and non-survivors to gauge accurately the chances of success and the factors influencing outcomes.

Be skeptical of narratives that only highlight success. Question what might be omitted and consider alternative sources of information to get a more complete picture.