Ok. We have cognitive biases. That makes us irrational and Aristotle was wrong? Hmmmm. Well, seems to me that if we did NOT have cognitive biases, we would still be irrational beings, based on the notion that cognitive bias is the outcome of a rational psyche and sentience? Let's take the matter one step further into absurdity: animals are irrational because they do not possess sentience and/or consciousness. What would it mean if we could somehow measure animal behavior(s) in such a way as to show, at least superficially, that they actually are rational when compared to our cognitively biased selves? Perhaps OUTCOME, as used above is too strong a word. I'm just thinking out loud. So, what if there were a way for us to erase our cognitive biases? Would we? Could we? All right, you can't compare animal behavior to human behavior. I get that. But where, when and why does cognitive bias emerge? Socialization and acculturation appear to be likely precursors. We TEACH cognitive bias, don't we? Well, if that were true, we certainly would not be very rational. And, on the basis of that argument, I guess we are not... (I was wearing my sociologist's cap for this one.)

See also: my remarks on Comedy and the Culture Wars...(scheduled for December 8, 2019) I still believe cognitive bias is largely a learned behavior. And, perhaps moreover, irrationality is a defense mechanism? Mindfulness, then, only attains within those who attain mind fullness...is it all connected with Searle's notion about direction-of-fit?

Its so politically incorrect to suggest diferences between the sexual dimorphism. Its just like if someone made the existence of time into a political issue. On one hand, you can obviously eat a plate of french fries without suffering from the exotoxins of mold spores but then you also cant explaine the incorporeality that lets you do it.

Obviously there's a difference between the sexes you can discuss but you have to entertain legitimacy for the fallacy of statistics and averages to do it. A very unpopular fallacy to entertain when it doesnt suit you.

在某种程度上，你只需要承认，在5亿年的进化过程中看到的问题可能不是“问题”，而从这些问题中解放出来，而没有适当的解决方案来平衡这些问题，已经导致世界走向很可能是真正的全球毁灭的边缘。

如果有关上下文解决方案的讨论将被党派政治所拒绝，那么一个强有力的倒退可能是一个非常好的主意。

I have a bias against using Greekesque plurals for words with no Greek root. I can almost tolerate biases being pronounced as "biaseez", but processes is definitely not "processeez", any more that fortresses is "fortresseez" or caresses are "caresseez". Biases and processes were so much a part of this otherwise enjoyable and interesting podcast that it was quite maddening.

这场表演围绕着真相，但最终是完整而有针对性的。哈基姆，最后一个从卡斯特罗谷打来的人，丢了一个关键点，诺塞克把这一切都带回家，结果节目结束了。不幸的是，整个关于认知偏差的讨论和概念都被混淆所掩盖。让我分享一下我的经历，因为我不仅有认知偏见，我还有认知挑战。

The human mind is constructed. The brain and human body is a tool for this mind to find truth. Along the way we bounce from breast to tombstone on a cascade of necessity and vice. Very very rarely do we actually find truth.

I lost it... let me start again.

这个节目毫无意义，误导人，最后一点也没有推进认知偏见的概念。认知偏差的整个概念就是认知偏差。

等待……这也不好。让我再试一次。

Ken hit a very deep point early on that was glanced a few more times in the discussion and, I think, might put light to the darkness that is cognition falsity.

Ken playfully called Debra Dorothy to allude to Dorothy's awakening or delusion to find Oz and the Lollipop Guild. This is the deep. This is the point where bias becomes bias. You are not you. The mind is not the brain though it sprouts from it.

博客是有趣的。在许多网站，尤其是新闻网站，你可以用头像来写博客。这是一种解放和富有成效的方式。它也可以是粗糙的，是的，是不人道的-大卫正在博客上讨论这个问题。我选择使用我的真实姓名在这个网站和新闻网站。

But what is real? What is cognitive bias? I think Nosek confuses the issue by not laying out his concept of construction to begin. It is "the" deepest confusion in Science and thought today. Drop your avatar when finding truth unless that avatar is the problem all along. It is.

什么是真的?．.．我不知道。但我喜欢各种口味的棒棒糖。是一根味道很差的棒棒糖。我认为没有。Oz是真的吗?Certainly not.

我有偏见吗?也许吧。

An essay I have been developing:

Cognitive bias and the role of form vs. substance

Cognitive bias, which I have called learning-driven, gets additional impetus from the form/substance dichotomy. Form dictates procedure, process and rules of propriety. Basking in its self-importance, it allows for substance (if any ensues) only as an incidental by-product.(It is worth noting here that in law, fairness entails two levels of due process: procedural and substantive. The procedural aspect deals with the form a process may take, The substantive, as that name suggests, concerns the matter of substance.) Rules of order are the quintessential manifestation of this phenomenon: the most important outcome is not an effective, substance-laden investigation of evidence and facts. The outcome (if it may be called such) is merely an assured and orderly procession, dotting the ii's and crossing the tt's, with form collapsing under the weight of its' own immensity. The inability of meetings to generate substantive change and improvement reliably and consistently demonstrates itself. Organized chaos is not simply a humorous quip. It is an apt description of what causes organizations to fail and otherwise-competent executives to leave, be expelled or commit suicide. Chaos, by any appellation, is still chaos. For many of us, this is a lesson learned over the course of a lifetime and one from which few profit. A fortiari, for some there have emerged new models, rejecting the burdens of form and embracing open-ended, substance-seeking approaches By encouraging results-oriented methods, obstructive effects of cognitive bias can be reduced. Japanese auto makers.pioneered this notion and other segments of society are catching up. As Ryle noted, problems are not always questions. It is helpful, however, when solutions can be found...

Cognitive Bias, Part Two
(I actually have re-written the first portion of this essay. Much of what was shown above on January 2, 2020 got severely edited and substantially re-organized)

Is it the case, though, that cognitive bias, in all its disguises, is an inescapable contingency? May it be surmised this has always been so? In so far as there are beliefs about most anything and a plenitude of unprepared, undisciplined minds holding those beliefs, the answer, I think, must be yes. Presence-of-mind requires effort and practice: few of us can be bothered with Zen gymnastics or anything of the sort. Thinking harder is not in the playbook. Those who lack a coherent playbook, or worse, see no need for one, are blissfully ignorant of their limitations and most certainly condemned to their own cognitive bias., 'until some cro mag steals the BMW'. They have not a bare notion that providence smiles on determination and purpose (PSDP), let alone the claim: chance favors the prepared mind.

有人可能会问:有没有什么不可避免的意外事件?如果是的话:认知偏见是否必然是其中之一?我认为，信念和精神纪律的缺失在很大程度上是认知偏差的原因。然而，人们得出的结论是，人类的思想是多层次和复杂的。我们个人在社会结构中的定位至关重要;我们希望确保和保持身份;派拉蒙。即使是那些与我们格格不入的人，不管他们多么古怪、多么疏离，都保留着某种身份感;对归属感的渴望。认同和归属需要适应和妥协。利益集团和更紧密的意识形态实体既不改革也不符合潜在成员的愿望:潜在的追随者必须符合、接受、接受、支持和捍卫群体的认知偏见。 The bias, a fortiari, is self-perpetuating, not subject to change, failing advent of some paradigm shift. such shifts, other things equal, do not command support and defense of cognitive bias. Reasons may be manifold, but, at bottom, there were not enough turtles...

CB, Part Three:

这样看来，你们是得着好消息了。坏消息和最好被认为是不确定的消息。认知偏差是感知的一部分——这是人类状况的一部分。它促进和/或增强了我们的身份和归属感。只有精神疾病或伤害才可能改变、损害，甚至在极端情况下，摧毁它。它可以通过镇定、决心和目的(或者说是意志力)来引导和操纵，但人们不太可能避免它。即使是在修道院隔离也不行。(这类静思被注入了本文所讨论主题的一种特殊变体:一种认知共鸣。That is fuel for another essay regarding the relationship between religion and magic, currently in first draft format.)

A final note, and by no means axiomatic: those who value form over substance may suffer disproportionately with cognitive bias. I am uncertain as to why, but, it appears to have something to do with getting one's ducks where they are supposed to be.

最后注意:我考虑过全面修改第一部分，在1/2/20上展示。但是，由于修订并没有实质性地改变工作的总体信息和意图，这将是不必要的工作。祝大家PSDP，祝大家晚安。

Another take on form, substance and living in the real world, and again, this is just for fun:

Process implies form, but form does not guarantee substance. Consider, if you will, the current state of government: hire a clown, expect a circus. Hire a troop of clowns, expect the Greatest Show on Earth.

Re-write and addition(s) to Part Three, from the sentence which reads: ...That is fuel...currently in first draft format.):

Due, in pertinent part to the inerrant need for identity and belonging, and, notions fired by the PROCESS of socialization begun in childhood, human beings cannot help but become cognitively biased. The direction and scope of that enterprise depends upon how they are parented; general and specific influences emerging therefrom; and, personal interests attending growth and maturity. Form, it would seem, ought to channel interest toward substantive matters. Yet, it is seen that ALTHOUGH FORM IMPLIES PROCESS, IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUBSTANCE, EVEN WHEN PROMISING TO DO SO. If, in Sellars' intonement, these 'things' were able to 'hang together' (inerrantly), a perfection of that human condition would more affirmatively present itself. He probably had some intuition of this, with or without a definitive notion thereof. As we see, perennially, promises are as ephemeral as individuals seeking public office, who also make them, perennially.

最后一点(这绝非不言自明):那些看重形式甚于实质的人，可能会在CB中遭受最大的损失。至于他们是否有能力(或愿意)拥有这一点，问题就来了。有了这个忠告，我把这个话题留给你自己的研究和调查。

从2020年1月5日到15日，我与大家分享了这篇文章，在进一步编辑的过程中，我重新写了几篇，这样，我提出的想法会变得更有凝聚力。在这些努力中，我得出了关于整个“企业”的两个概念:认知偏见，归根结底，是基于对某事的信念。越不相信这个事实，信仰者的认知偏差就越大。2.当我不持有相同的信念时，你的认知偏见对我来说是没有意义的，当然，反过来也一样。

Last comment on this topic (I promise):

更重要的是，就观点不太可能是知识的功能，而更可能是信仰的结果而言，认知偏见恰好属于这一类。信念是“可疑的”是一个先验线索。关于这一点的心理学或精神分析的概念，是主体的后验。即使那些从业者可能也不这么认为。
就像一个前乐队成员常说的:每个人都有自己的专辑要做……

我们在哪里可以找到一个“最大的清单”(她说“接近200个”!)的认知偏见??

Rightly said. Knowing cognitive biases can really help us understand ourselves better and improve decision making.

I have a 10,000+ worded article that covers 20 biases in-depth, with infographics, examples, and ways to overcome them -https://productiveclub.com/cognitive-biases/. It might be a great addition to your readers.

But anyway, great article.

I am interested in natural occurring cognitive biases in nature. The closest example I've found is the American groundhog - which supposedly emerges from its burrow where is has been hibernating - but if it is cloudy - it concludes that winter is not over (I know a bit of anthropomorphism) and goes back into its burrow again for another 6 weeks. A human equivalent is Aristotles error, shared by many, and is "intuitive", but was corrected by Galileo's experimental proof, is that heavier bodies fall faster than light ones.