The French philosopher Descartes once claimed, "Our thoughts are the only things we have complete control over." But is this statement accurate? Historically, it was assumed that individuals could indeed manage their thinking processes. Many believed that anyone could emulate the analytical skills of Sherlock Holmes simply by adopting a rational mindset, free from emotional influences and biases. However, advancements in neuroscience have revealed a different truth. It turns out that thinking is fundamentally a function of the brain, which tends to resist rationality. The brain is actually designed to favor certain illogical thought processes, often leading to poor decisions. These flawed reasoning patterns are collectively known as cognitive biases. While there are numerous types of cognitive biases, several of the most prominent have been identified, highlighting the complexities of human thought and the challenges in achieving objective reasoning.

Kevin asserts that he follows a strict vegetarian lifestyle, believing his choice to avoid meat is logical and supported by objective research. He claims there is extensive scientific backing for the advantages of a vegetarian diet, while he views studies advocating meat consumption as limited and dubious. In contrast, Sara champions a diet that includes both meat and plants. She firmly believes that her viewpoint is the most rational, based on all the scientific data available. According to her, the most credible research indicates that excluding meat could pose health risks, whereas the purported benefits of vegetarianism are, at the very least, questionable.

Both Kevin and Sara exhibit confirmation bias, a cognitive distortion that leads individuals to favor information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs. This bias influences not only the manner in which information is gathered but also how it is interpreted and remembered. As a result, individuals like Kevin and Sara tend to unconsciously seek out data that supports their views. When faced with contradictory evidence, confirmation bias enables them to reinterpret it in a manner that reinforces their original stance or dismisses it as untrustworthy. Consequently, this bias hinders objective analysis of situations, often resulting in flawed or misguided decisions.

Confirmation bias manifests in various ways, such as racism, which is a harmful trait present in all cultures, and biases related to religion, gender, social status, and age. Our allegiance to political factions often leads us to categorize them as 'us' versus 'them,' reinforcing our tendency towards flawed reasoning and rigid thinking.↵
Overcoming confirmation bias is quite challenging on your own. Charles Darwin suggested a valuable strategy to avoid this pitfall: he consistently documented observations that contradicted his beliefs and actively sought to explore them. By focusing on claims that oppose your viewpoints and attempting to undermine your own convictions, you can arrive at a more impartial conclusion. This method encourages critical thinking and helps mitigate the effects of biased reasoning.

Are you planning to see that film that's currently topping the box office, even though you typically dislike superhero flicks? Is that popular brand of crispy chips now your go-to snack, despite your usual aversion to greasy foods? Do you admire the new hairstyle that has become trendy among teenagers, even though you previously thought it looked silly? If you answered yes to these questions, reconsider! You might be succumbing to the influence of the bandwagon effect.

The bandwagon effect in psychology describes a tendency where individuals adopt behaviors or beliefs mainly because others are doing so, irrespective of their personal convictions. This inclination arises from our inherent social nature as humans. However, the bandwagon effect can lead to adverse outcomes. It might prompt individuals to support a popular political figure without thoroughly assessing their qualifications or policies. Furthermore, it can mislead voters into thinking a candidate is widely accepted, thus encouraging support based on perceived popularity rather than informed judgment.

Adolf Hitler's rise to power in his early political days was marked by the emergence of the Nazi party. Utilizing radio broadcasts, he portrayed the party as significant and widely accepted, persuading many Germans to vote for the Nazis without fully understanding their actual ideologies. As Hitler's popularity grew, attracting more supporters became increasingly straightforward. Individuals were inclined to join the popular party due to peer influence, even if they were unaware of the party's disturbing beliefs and actions, highlighting a concerning trend in political mobilization.

Following the crowd is not inherently wrong; often, popular products and ideas are favored for valid reasons, while unpopular ones may be dismissed for good cause. However, this isn't always true. Thus, it's important to recognize the bandwagon effect and protect yourself against it, even if you conclude that the majority might be correct. As Mark Twain wisely noted, when you find yourself aligned with the majority, it is wise to pause and reconsider. A clear illustration of the bandwagon effect can be observed through the unconditional support of the German populace for the Nazis.

Framing involves presenting an issue, argument, or statement in a specific manner to shape the audience's emotions or viewpoints. When this strategy effectively changes the audience's choices or perceptions, it is known as the framing effect. We see framing effects in many aspects of daily life, especially in the business sector. For instance, a potential customer might reject a gym membership priced at 500,000 won annually due to its high cost. However, if the same membership is framed as just 1,370 won per day, the same individual might perceive it as affordable and be more inclined to make the purchase.

The framing effect is prevalent in mass media and can significantly shape public opinion. For instance, statistics show that EU migrants cost the UK government ₤408.12 every second in public spending while contributing ₤463.35 every second in revenue. A newspaper might headline with "EU migrants cost the UK government ₤408.12 per second in public spending," followed by additional details, likely inciting negative feelings towards immigrants among readers. Conversely, another publication might choose a headline like "EU migrants contribute ₤463.35 every second in revenue," presenting the same information in a positive light, which would elicit a vastly different reaction from its audience.

To avoid being swayed by the framing effect, there are various strategies you can employ. One effective method is to reinterpret the information in your own terms. For instance, rather than just accepting the advertisement of a gym membership at 1,370 won per day, you can calculate the total cost on a monthly or yearly basis. Additionally, it's beneficial to contemplate other options that may not be presented in the information. Sometimes, questions are posed in a binary manner, such as asking whether competition is advantageous or detrimental. In such cases, it's crucial to recognize that the impact of competition can vary significantly depending on the specific situation.

Cognitive biases are prevalent and can significantly impact our judgment. These biases can cloud our perception, making it hard to see how irrational or unjust certain beliefs may be. Acknowledging that we are not always logical or correct is crucial in combating these biases. When we recognize that our viewpoints can be skewed, we become more open to accepting uncomfortable information. This acceptance is essential for gaining true control over our thoughts, a concept that philosopher Descartes emphasized as vital.

Picture yourself in a situation where you need to make a left turn in traffic. While executing the turn, you attempt to mentally calculate the product of 17 and 24. The distraction could lead you to either give up on the calculation or cause an accident. In contrast, adding two plus two during the turn would be manageable. This difference raises the question of complexity in tasks. Common belief suggests that one task is simple while the other is challenging. However, Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate in Economics, argues that the distinction runs deeper than just easy or hard tasks.

Kahneman explains that we approach most problems with two distinct forms of thinking: System 1 and System 2. The former is quick and instinctive, such as when adding two plus two. In contrast, System 2 requires careful analysis and effort, as seen in calculating the product of 17 and 24, which necessitates practice.

System 1 functions rapidly and instinctively, driven by emotions, often working automatically. It excels in familiar scenarios where quick decisions are necessary. Conversely, System 2 operates at a slower pace, demanding deeper thought, careful planning, and thorough consideration of various alternatives before making a choice.

Typically, we excel in our activities, trusting our instincts and acting on our desires, which leads us to utilize System 1 for most problem-solving. System 2 operates subtly in the background, allowing System 1 to manage situations until complications arise. When System 1 encounters challenges, System 2 steps in to assist. Additionally, System 2 plays a crucial role by moderating the impulses and ingrained habits of System 1, particularly when overconfidence clouds our judgment and we overlook our own lack of knowledge, resulting in errors. Ultimately, System 2 oversees the evaluation of our decisions, encouraging us to reflect and ensure our choices are logical and sound.

Kahneman suggests that while System 2 generally yields better outcomes in various scenarios, relying on it constantly is neither beneficial nor feasible in daily life. Instead, individuals should focus on identifying situations where errors are probable and strive to avoid these pitfalls, especially when the stakes are high. This approach enables us to balance intuitive and analytical thinking effectively.