Posted on

“How will you keep your patients safe???”

The link below leads to a PDF version of a presentation by Michael Lord, Doctor of Nursing Practice at Pennsylvania University, Biobehavioral Health Sciences.

Focusing on designing good curriculum, Mr Lord make  strong case for the reduction of biases in judgement and decision making.

Quotes: “Cognitive errors are thought to be a significant factor in medical mishaps.”

http://crnaconferences.com/presentations/2017/ZZZ-M-Lord-Cog-Bias-Mt.Airy-10.pdf

Will I carry a copy to me next medical appointment?

 

 

Posted on

Canadians won’t switch – even when it’s cheaper

Canada’s ‘big 3’ – BCE (‘Bell’), Rogers and Telus – has three quarters of Canadian home internet market. This is in spite of smaller competitors offering the same and better service, cheaper. Why is this?

‘Human nature’ deconstructed here suggest four cognitive biases for this behaviour.

  1. Over estimate of risk – Risk Aversion. Subscribers worry that switching may leave them worse off.
  2. Trust in the established order – Authority Bias. Familiarity breeds trust breed liking.
  3. A misperception that a cheaper price must mean ‘cheap’ service –  Halo effect. If you charge less, you can be perceived as worth less.
  4. Habit and routine – Sunk Cost, Endowment Effect. Inertia and resistance have bases in routines.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/canadians-pay-big-fees-for-internet-so-why-don-t-they-switch-companies-1.4596459

Posted on

Moral Hazard – The Peltzman Effect

The  Peltzman effect is about “moral hazard” — our tendency to take more risks when we’re insulated from the costs of that risk-taking.

If credit is cheap and easy, do we over-extend ourselves?

If we make cars safer, do people drive with less care and attention?

In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, this columnist asks if societies’ measures to reverse drug overdoses actually enable drug addiction.

The ‘moral hazard’ of naloxone in the opioid crisis.

 

 

 

Posted on

Stockmarket – Mind Games?

Who doesn’t like some thrills every now and then? Or maybe rollercoaster rides belong in theme parks – not in stock markets.

But the stock market is where cognitive biases  how up at the most inconvenient times. Emotions precede reason, and there is no exercise of reason without emotion first. Our reactions are physiologically based: they do not instantly run to the brain centres that promote reasoning.

  • Gamblers’ Fallacy: You have told yourself that the market has been going up and up – isn’t that ‘proof’ that you should buy in, or stay in? You know it’s a gamble but if the past ten days have produced gains, then buying in is less of a gamble…
  • Status-Quo: Should you have changed your profile, your strategy? When, today when stocks are taking a hit, or three months ago, when commentators you respect were warning of a correction? Inertia is a very powerful force…
  • Negativity: The bad news is always front on mind – it’s why the evening news is full of tragedies and conflicts. But is the stock market now a mess, a total catastrophe from which you should flee, no matter the cost?
  • Bandwagon Effect: Fear and greed rule the markets. If everyone is piling in to buy, that is when the rational person knows it is time to step back.  Otherwise he or she is letting confirmation bias distort thinking.
  • Loss-Aversion: Your stock may have just dropped in value. Part of you wants to sell and flee, but you cannot help wanting to wait, to recoup your money… How long will you wait?
  • Overconfidence: If you are proud of being an original thinker, or that your have unique insights or know-how, good for you. We all need to feel we can make our mark and have things come around our way. But if you need to imagine that you know better than the millions of other investors and gamblers in the stock market, that is closer to megalomania or narcissism than anything else.
  • Endowment Bias: This is the corollary of the Loss Aversion bias: we imagine that whet we have is worth more than similar objects that others have or own. ‘My antique table is better than your antique table.’ You wish: but this is a projection of your own belief that you (and your possessions) are more important than others’.  Your stock is only as valuable as the price it will fetch…
Posted on

End of days – what, again?!

We’re never short of commentary and predictions about the decline of the West.

The usual culprits are environmental destruction, wars, and natural disasters. In a New Scientist article, Laura Spinney (‘Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World’ 2016) offers a take on how things might unravel – our ever-increasing ignorance of how to keep our societies functioning and adapting to the pace of technological change.

Sorry, it’s not a re-tread of the old reliable ‘Kids these days, they’re so …!’ It’s all of us, and it’s built in: we don’t just like the short-cut thinking that Kahneman and Tversky explored in their ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ – we live it.

But as our analytical skills degrade, who will run things that require the methodical, rational, time-consuming work to keep our screens on?

Read more here.