People who think their opinions are superior to others are most prone to overestimating their relevant knowledge and ignoring chances to learn more By guest blogger Tom Stafford We all know someone who is convinced their opinion is better than everyone else’s on a topic – perhaps, even, that it is the only correct opinion to have. Maybe, on some topics, you are that person. The researchers distinguish “belief superiority” from “belief confidence” (thinking your opinion is correct). The pair set out to find people who felt their beliefs on a variety of controversial political issues (things like terrorism and civil liberties, or wealth redistribution) were superior, and to check – using multiple choice quizzes – how well they were informed on the topics about which they held these superiority beliefs. Across five studies Hall and Raimi found that those people with the highest belief superiority also tended to have the largest gap between their perceived and actual knowledge – the belief superior consistently suffered from the illusion that they were better informed than they were. Overall the research presents a mixed picture.
Ten Reasons People Resist Change - Rosabeth Moss Kanter by Rosabeth Moss Kanter | 12:00 PM September 25, 2012 Leadership is about change, but what is a leader to do when faced with ubiquitous resistance? Resistance to change manifests itself in many ways, from foot-dragging and inertia to petty sabotage to outright rebellions. The best tool for leaders of change is to understand the predictable, universal sources of resistance in each situation and then strategize around them. Loss of control. Excess uncertainty. Surprise, surprise! Everything seems different. Loss of face. Concerns about competence. More work. Ripple effects. Past resentments. Sometimes the threat is real. Although leaders can’t always make people feel comfortable with change, they can minimize discomfort.
Petit recueil de 18 moisissures argumentatives pour concours de mauvaise foi Petit recueil de non plus 18, mais 20 moisissures argumentatives à utiliser sans modération lors des concours de mauvaise foi. Ont été intégrés les plurium et l’argument de l’exotisme. Nous avons découpé ces moisissures argumentatives en trois grandes catégories : les erreurs logiques, les attaques, et les travestissements. Télécharger en pdf la mise en page magnifique du graphiste Francois-b. 1. Méthode : prendre un échantillon trop petit et en tirer une conclusion générale. Exemples : Mon voisin est un imbécile moustachu, donc tous les moustachus sont des imbéciles.Les Chinois sont vachement sympas. Exemples aggravés (menant au racisme ordinaire) : Le Chinois est vachement sympa. 2. Méthode : raisonner à rebours, vers une cause possible parmi d’autres, vers un scénario préconçu ou vers la position que l’on souhaite prouver. Exemples : C’est fou,le melon est déjà prédécoupé pour être mangé en famille .Le monde est trop bien foutu, c’est une preuve de l’existence d’une volonté divine. 3. 4. 5.
Companion Animal Psychology: Are young children more interested in animals than toys? At what age do children develop a fascination with animals? A brand new paper by Vanessa LoBue et al investigates young children’s interest in live animals. A set of three studies looked at young children in a naturalistic play environment in which they could choose to interact with animals or toys. The animals were always in an enclosure, so the children could only look at them and not physically touch them. The first study was an exploratory one involving children aged between 11 and 40 months. The results showed that children interacted more frequently with the animals than the toys, and spent more time interacting with the animals than the two most popular toys. The second study was similar, but this time as well as the fish and hamster there was a black Tarantula and an orange and black California Mountain King snake. The final study utilized a more controlled design. Infants aged 18 – 33 months took part. Did you have any pets as a child, and if so, what? Reference
50 Common Cognitive Distortions 3. Negative predictions. Overestimating the likelihood that an action will have a negative outcome. 4. Underestimating your ability cope with negative events. 5. Thinking of unpleasant events as catastrophes. 6. For example, during social interactions, paying attention to someone yawning but not paying the same degree of attention to other cues that suggest they are interested in what you’re saying (such as them leaning in). 7. Remembering negatives from a social situation and not remembering positives. 8. Believing an absence of a smiley-face in an email means someone is mad at you. 9. The belief that achieving unrelentingly high standards is necessary to avoid a catastrophe. 10. Believing the same rules that apply to others should not apply to you. 11. For example, I’ve made progress toward my goal and therefore it’s ok if I act in a way that is inconsistent with it. 12. For example, believing that poor people must deserve to be poor. 13. 14. It’s not. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
Google bans Glass from shareholder meeting - Android Authority In an ironic twist, Google has decided to ban Glass from their annual shareholders meeting. Like so many bars and other establishments ahead of them, Google fears Glass may be a bit too invasive. If they were hoping to avoid controversy in Mountain View with regard to Glass, they failed. To be fair, Google has also banned cell phones and other recording devices, so it’s not all about Glass. To further drive the point home, Google has made no claims that Glass doesn’t have the ability or functionality to be intrusive on privacy. It’s been a rough road travelled, and Glass isn’t even available to the public yet. Like most things Glass related, this is a slippery slope. Banned before it even hits the streets, increasingly restrictive development guidelines, and now Glass has been locked out of a Google shareholder meeting. It’s been a rough road travelled, and Glass isn’t even available to the public yet.
Perché gli stupidi si credono intelligenti? – RicPuglisi Vi è mai capitato di incontrare dei perfetti idioti che si credono dei portenti di intelligenza? Sicuramente sì. Potrebbe esservi anche capitato di essere sicuri di avere capito tutto su un certo tema, ma -con il senno di poi- realizzare di esservi illusi di capire, quando in realtà avevate capito poco o niente. Si tratta di un tema molto generale: noi esseri umani siamo capaci di essere obiettivi su noi stessi e sulla nostra intelligenza? In particolare, quanto più qualcuno è incompetente su un certo tema o in una certa attività, tanto più crede di essere più bravo di quel che è. L’effetto per cui se sei stupido e/o scarso su un certo tema non sai neanche di esserlo si chiama “effetto Dunning/Kruger”, dal nome dei due psicologi che ne hanno dimostrato la presenza attraverso una serie di esperimenti. Si tratta in buona sostanza di una “stupidità al quadrato”, in quanto sei stupido e lo sei talmente tanto da non capire di esserlo. La prova di ciò? Per chi vuole saperne di più: Mi piace:
Global Capitalism with a Human Face? « AC VOICE (Pete Suechting)— Why are charity and environmental conscientiousness so widespread, even fashionable, in today’s society? Back in the 1960’s and even earlier than that, these attitudes were anomalies, only practiced by societal outliers. Before Rachel Carson’s landmark work, Silent Spring, most Americans were unaware that humans could have an adverse and discernible impact on the environment. So, how and why have these attitudes become so prevalent today? Zizek characterizes today’s form of capitalism as “global capitalism with a human face”, or more generally, cultural capitalism. Zizek points to Toms as the most “absurd example” of cultural capitalism. Learning of inequality or injustice in the world causes an emotional response. Now, this short-circuit would not be a problem if the charitable act that companies include within their products were real, effective programs. So, how do we address this problem? Now, let us think about some more concrete solutions. Like this: Related
10 distorsions cognitives qui entretiennent des émotions négatives Le terme distorsion cognitive a été introduit en 1967 par le psychiatre américain Aaron T. Beck, pionnier de la psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale. Selon son modèle, les distorsions cognitives sont des façons de traiter l'information qui résultent en erreurs de pensée prévisibles ayant souvent pour conséquence d'entretenir des pensées et des émotions négatives. Elles contribuent ainsi aux troubles émotionnels tels que la dépression et l'anxiété ainsi qu'aux troubles de la personnalité. Dans son travail avec des personnes atteintes de dépression, Beck a identifié six erreurs systématiques de pensée : La pensée « tout ou rien » ou « noir ou blanc » Penser de façon dichotomique (polarisée) sans nuance : tout ou rien, noir ou blanc, jamais ou toujours, bon ou mauvais…. Par la suite (1980), le psychologue David Burns a identifié quatre autres distorsions : Le raisonnement émotionnel Prendre pour acquis que des états émotifs correspondent à la réalité. Psychomédia Tous droits réservés.
Sokushinbutsu Sokushinbutsu (即身仏?) refers to a practice of Buddhist monks observing austerity to the point of death and mummification. This process of self-mummification was mainly practiced in Yamagata in Northern Japan between the 11th and 19th century, by members of the Japanese Vajrayana school of Buddhism called Shingon ("True Word"). The practitioners of sokushinbutsu did not view this practice as an act of suicide, but rather as a form of further enlightenment.[1] Those who succeeded were revered, while those who failed were nevertheless respected for the effort. It is believed that many hundreds of monks tried, but only 24 such mummifications have been discovered to date. There is a common suggestion that Shingon school founder Kukai brought this practice from Tang China as part of secret tantric practices he learned, and that were later lost in China.[2] Today, the practice is not advocated or practiced by any Buddhist sect, and is banned in Japan.[3] In popular culture[edit] See also[edit]
25 biais cognitifs qui nuisent à la pensée rationnelle Les biais cognitifs sont des formes de pensée qui représentent une déviation de la pensée logique ou rationnelle et qui ont tendance à être systématiquement utilisées dans diverses situations. Ils constituent des façons rapides et intuitives de porter des jugements ou de prendre des décisions qui sont moins laborieuses qu'un raisonnement analytique qui tiendrait compte de toutes les informations pertinentes. Ces processus de pensée rapide sont souvent utiles mais sont aussi à la base de jugements erronés typiques. Le concept de biais cognitif a été introduit au début des années 1970 par les psychologues Daniel Kahneman (prix Nobel d'économie 2002) et Amos Tversky pour expliquer certaines tendances vers des décisions irrationnelles dans le domaine économique. Certains biais s'expliquent par les ressources cognitives limitées (temps, informations, intérêt, capacités cognitives). Voici une liste de 30 biais cognitifs fréquents Raisonnement et jugement Le biais de confirmation Le (ou effet barnum
The Reconstructionists 12 biais cognitifs à déjouer pour recruteurs brillants Le recrutement est un processus humain, imparfait. Les biais cognitifs des recruteurs sont à l’œuvre tous les jours. Ils trompent leur perception, leur jugement et leur décision. Voici les 12 biais cognitifs les plus importants que tout recruteur devrait savoir déjouer. A- Les biais en entrevue #1- Le biais d’association (positif ou négatif) ou de généralisation excessive : Considérer certaines informations comme favorables ou défavorables et suffisantes pour prendre une décision. « Il a changé deux fois d’entreprise en trois ans, il est instable. #2- Le biais de confirmation ou effet de halo : Considérer uniquement certaines informations en entrevue qui valident la perception acquise à la lecture de certains critères antérieurs. « Elle est très orientée vers l’action. #3- Le biais d’autorité : Retenir un seul critère comme gage de qualité d’une décision selon l’expérience du recruteur. « Il a travaillé 4 ans pour cette compagnie. #4- L’illusion de savoir : #5- L’effet d’ancrage mental.