Specimen family n = 20

Judgment Errors

Judgment errors are cognitive biases that skew decision-making processes, often leading to incorrect or suboptimal outcomes. These biases influence how we interpret information, make predictions, and assess risks, frequently resulting in flawed judgments that can have significant impacts on our decisions and behaviors. Understanding these errors can help in making more rational and informed decisions, avoiding common pitfalls that many fall into.
Base Rate Neglect A vivid case detail feels more real than how common the outcome is in the population. 58 · Moderate BRN Outcome Bias You judge the quality of a decision by its result - even when luck, not process, wrote the ending. 60 · Moderate OB Misinformation Effect Details you learn after an event can weave into what you remember - until the later story feels like something you saw. 64 · Moderate ME Serial Position Effect You remember the first and last items in a series best - and the middle is where details go to die. 47 · Mild SPE Primacy Effect First information gets extra weight - openings stick, set the frame, and color everything that follows. 58 · Moderate PE Recency Effect The last thing you heard often weighs more than the middle - freshness masquerades as importance. 52 · Mild RE Planning Fallacy You underestimate the time, costs, and risks of future actions while overestimating the benefits. 63 · Moderate PF Affective Forecasting Error You mispredict how future events will make you feel - usually expecting stronger emotions that fade faster than you expect. 66 · High AFE Pro-Innovation Bias You overvalue an innovation's benefits while underestimating its limitations or risks. 58 · Moderate PIB Overconfidence Bias You trust your skill, knowledge, or edge more than the evidence warrants - so you skip checks and underprepare. 70 · High OCB Zero-Risk Bias You prefer to wipe out one small risk completely - even when cutting a larger risk would do more good. 60 · Moderate ZRB Omission Bias Harm from doing nothing feels more acceptable than similar harm from acting - so you leave risky defaults in place. 72 · High OmB Status Quo Bias You stick with the current option because it is current - even when switching would likely be better. 74 · High SQB Neglect of Probability You treat a vivid outcome as if possibility alone were enough - and skip how likely it actually is. 62 · Moderate NP Exponential Growth Bias You treat compounding as roughly linear - so doublings, interest, and "slow then sudden" curves arrive as surprises. 69 · High EGB Scope Neglect Your caring and spending barely scale with size - so 2,000 harms can feel almost like 200. 69 · High ScN Identifiable Victim Effect A named or pictured victim may attract more help than an otherwise comparable anonymous victim. 71 · High IVE Motivated Reasoning You rationalize your decisions based on what you want to believe. 78 · Severe MR Survivorship Bias You focus on successful cases while ignoring failures, leading to overestimation of success. 59 · Moderate SB Choice Overload Too many options can freeze you, lower satisfaction, and make "not choosing" feel safer than picking. 60 · Moderate ChO