bias-detection

name	bias-detection
description	Library of cognitive biases for identifying and correcting systematic errors in reasoning during decision-making

Bias Detection Reference

Purpose: A comprehensive reference for identifying and correcting cognitive biases that undermine decision quality.

When to Use: Consult during any decision gate, especially during Calibration and Contrarian Analysis.

Severity Levels

Level	Description	Response
Minor	Bias present but unlikely to significantly affect outcome	Note and monitor; proceed with awareness
Moderate	Bias could meaningfully skew decision	Pause to address; apply specific correction technique
Major	Bias likely to cause serious decision error	Stop and remediate; consider restarting analysis from earlier gate

Common Biases

1. Confirmation Bias

What it is: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Signs:

• Evidence search focuses only on sources likely to support preferred conclusion
• Dismissing contradictory evidence as "outliers" or "unreliable" without rigorous evaluation
• Interpreting ambiguous information as supporting the favored option

Correction:

• Actively seek out the strongest arguments against your preferred position
• Assign someone the explicit role of devil's advocate with genuine authority to challenge
• Before concluding research, ask: "What evidence would change my mind?" and search specifically for it

Severity: Major - This bias is pervasive and can undermine the entire decision process

---

2. Anchoring

What it is: Over-relying on the first piece of information encountered (the "anchor") when making decisions, even when that information is arbitrary or irrelevant.

Signs:

• Initial estimates or numbers disproportionately influence final conclusions
• Adjustments from starting point feel insufficient even when evidence suggests larger changes
• First option presented becomes the implicit benchmark against which all others are judged

Correction:

• Generate estimates independently before seeing any reference numbers
• Consider multiple starting points and work from each separately, then compare conclusions
• Explicitly ask: "If we hadn't seen that first number/option, what would we think?"

Severity: Moderate - Common in negotiations and financial decisions; addressable with awareness

---

3. Overconfidence

What it is: Excessive certainty in one's own answers, judgments, and predictions; believing you know more than you actually do.

Signs:

• Confidence intervals are too narrow (e.g., 90% confidence ranges that are correct only 50% of the time)
• Dismissing uncertainty or risk factors as unlikely without rigorous probability assessment
• Treating assumptions as facts and projections as certainties

Correction:

• Explicitly state confidence levels and track calibration over time
• Require evidence proportional to certainty claims - extraordinary confidence requires extraordinary evidence
• Use pre-mortem technique: "Assume this failed - why did it fail?"

Severity: Major - Leads to inadequate risk management and surprise failures

---

4. Sunk Cost Fallacy

What it is: Continuing to invest in a decision because of previously invested resources (time, money, effort) rather than future value.

Signs:

• Arguments for continuing reference past investment rather than future returns
• Reluctance to abandon projects despite poor prospects because of "how far we've come"
• Framing quitting as "waste" rather than rational resource reallocation

Correction:

• Evaluate decisions based solely on future costs and benefits, ignoring past investment
• Ask: "If we were starting fresh today with no history, would we choose this path?"
• Set explicit kill criteria at the start of projects and honor them when triggered

Severity: Moderate - Common but correctable with discipline; watch for escalation of commitment

---

5. Availability Bias

What it is: Judging likelihood or frequency based on how easily examples come to mind, rather than actual probability.

Signs:

• Recent or vivid events disproportionately influence risk assessment
• Overweighting dramatic risks (plane crashes) while underweighting mundane ones (car accidents)
• Personal experience trumping statistical evidence

Correction:

• Seek base rate data before forming probability estimates
• Ask: "Is this example memorable because it's common or because it's unusual?"
• Deliberately search for examples that contradict easily recalled ones

Severity: Moderate - Particularly dangerous in risk assessment and resource allocation

---

6. Groupthink

What it is: Prioritizing group harmony and conformity over realistic evaluation of alternatives; suppressing dissent to maintain consensus.

Signs:

• Dissenting opinions quickly abandoned or not voiced at all
• Pressure (subtle or explicit) on members who question the group's direction
• Illusion of unanimity - assuming silence means agreement

Correction:

• Assign a formal devil's advocate role that rotates among members
• Collect opinions independently (written) before group discussion
• Leader speaks last; explicitly invite and reward constructive disagreement

Severity: Major - Can lead to catastrophic collective failures; requires structural safeguards

---

7. Framing Effects

What it is: Being influenced by how information is presented rather than the information itself; different descriptions of identical outcomes lead to different decisions.

Signs:

• Strong preference shifts depending on whether options are described as gains vs. losses
• Risk tolerance changes based on problem description rather than underlying probabilities
• Emotional reactions to presentation style override rational evaluation

Correction:

• Reframe the same decision multiple ways: as gain/loss, risk/opportunity, short-term/long-term
• Convert qualitative descriptions to quantitative terms where possible
• Ask: "Would my decision change if this were described differently?"

Severity: Moderate - Addressable through deliberate reframing exercises

---

8. Planning Fallacy

What it is: Systematically underestimating time, costs, and risks of future actions while overestimating benefits; believing your project is different from similar past projects that failed.

Signs:

• Estimates based on best-case scenarios rather than realistic or base-rate outcomes
• Ignoring or discounting data from comparable past projects
• Explanations for why "this time is different" without rigorous justification

Correction:

• Use reference class forecasting: find similar past projects and use their actual outcomes as baseline
• Apply systematic multipliers to initial estimates based on historical accuracy
• Conduct pre-mortem analysis before committing to timeline

Severity: Major - Causes chronic under-delivery and budget overruns; requires systematic correction

---

Bias Audit Checklist

Use this checklist during Calibration and before finalizing decisions:

Information Gathering

• Confirmation Bias: Have we genuinely sought evidence against our preferred option?
• Availability Bias: Are we relying on base rates rather than memorable examples?
• Anchoring: Have we considered this without reference to initial numbers or first options?

Evaluation Process

• Overconfidence: Are our confidence levels calibrated to our actual evidence?
• Framing Effects: Have we reframed this decision multiple ways to test consistency?
• Planning Fallacy: Have we compared to reference class of similar past decisions?

Group Dynamics

• Groupthink: Has genuine dissent been expressed and taken seriously?
• Sunk Cost: Are we evaluating based on future value, not past investment?

Overall Assessment

• All Major-severity biases explicitly addressed
• Moderate-severity biases noted with mitigation in place
• Decision rationale documented independent of bias-prone reasoning