馃攳
CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: Anchoring [HD] - YouTube
Channel: Wireless Philosophy
[0]
(intro music)
[5]
My name is Laurie Santos.
[7]
I teach psychology at Yale
University, and today
[10]
I want to talk to you about anchoring.
[12]
This lecture is part of a
series on cognitive biases.
[16]
Let's do a math problem.
really quickly, and you've
[19]
gotta do it in your head
[20]
Ready?
[21]
First, multiply the following numbers:
eight times seven times six
[27]
times five times four times three times
two times one.
[32]
OK, that's it.
[35]
What's your guess?
[36]
A thousand?
[37]
Two thousand?
[39]
When the psychologists Danny Kahneman
and Amos Tversky tried this with
[43]
human subjects, subjects on average
[45]
guessed about two thousand
two hundred and fifty.
[47]
Seems like an OK guess.
[49]
But now, let's suppose I gave you
a different math problem.
[53]
What if I gave you this one?
[54]
Ready?
[56]
One times two times three times four
[60]
times five times six times
seven times eight.
[64]
What's your answer?
[66]
If you're like Kahneman and Tversky's
[68]
subjects, your answer might
be a bit different here.
[71]
For this question, their subjects
guessed a lot lower.
[73]
On average they said the answer
was about five hundred and twelve.
[77]
The first amazing thing
about these similar
[79]
mathematical estimates is that people get
the answers really, really wrong.
[83]
In fact, the real answer?
[85]
Well, for both, its forty thousand
three hundred and twenty.
[89]
People are off by an order of magnitude.
[91]
But the second, even more amazing
thing is that people give
[95]
different answers to the two problems,
even though they're just different ways
[99]
of asking exactly the same question.
[102]
Why do we give completely different answers,
[104]
when the same math problem
is presented differently?
[107]
The answer lies in how we make estimates.
[109]
When you have lots of time to do a math
[111]
problem, like eight times seven times six
times five times four times three times
[115]
two times one, you can multiply all of
[118]
the numbers together and get an exact product.
[121]
But when you have to do the problem
[122]
quickly, you don't really have time to finish.
[125]
So you start with the first numbers.
[127]
You multiply eight times
seven, and get fifty-six.
[130]
And then you've gotta
multiply that by six,
[132]
and, well, you're guessing the final
number's gotta be pretty big, bigger than
[136]
fifty-six, like maybe two thousand or so.
[139]
But when you do the second problem, you start
[142]
with one times two, and, well, that's only
two, and two times three's only six.
[146]
Your answer's gonna be pretty small,
[148]
maybe only like five hundred or so.
[151]
This process of guessing based on the first
[153]
number you see is what's
known as "anchoring."
[156]
The first number we think of
[157]
when we do our estimate is the anchor.
[159]
And once we have an anchor in our head,
[161]
well, we sort of adjust
as needed from there.
[164]
The problem is that our minds are biased
not to adjust as much as we need to.
[168]
The anchors are cognitively really strong.
[171]
In the first, problem you probably
started with fifty-six, and
[174]
then adjusted to an even
bigger number from there.
[177]
And in the second problem, you started
with six, and then adjusted from there.
[180]
The problem is that starting at different
points leads to different final guesses.
[185]
Like real anchors, our estimated anchors
kinda get us stuck in one spot.
[190]
We often fail to drag the anchor far
enough to get to a correct answer.
[194]
Kahneman and Tversky discovered that this
[197]
sort of anchoring bias happens all the time,
[199]
even for anchors that are totally arbitrary.
[202]
For example, they asked
people to spin a wheel with
[205]
numbers from one to a hundred,
and then asked them to estimate
[208]
what percentage of countries in
the United Nations are African.
[211]
People who spun a ten on
the wheel estimated that
[214]
the number was about twenty-five percent.
[216]
But people who spun a
sixty-five estimated that
[219]
the number was forty-five percent.
[221]
In another experiment, Dan Ariely
and his colleagues had people
[226]
write down the last two digits
of their social security number.
[229]
They were then asked whether they would
[230]
pay that amount in dollars
for a nice bottle of wine.
[234]
Ariely and colleagues found that people
in the highest quintile of social security
[238]
numbers would pay three to four times
as much for the exact same good.
[242]
Just setting up a larger anchor can make a
[244]
person who would pay eight
dollars for the bottle
[247]
of wine be willing to spend
twenty-seven dollars instead.
[250]
Sadly for us, sales people use
anchors against us all the time.
[254]
How many times have you noticed
a salesperson or an advertisement
[258]
anchoring you to a particular price, or
[261]
even to how much of a particular
product you should buy?
[263]
Whether it's buying a car, or a sweater,
[266]
or even renting a hotel room, our
intuitions about what prices
[270]
are reasonable to pay often come
from some arbitrary anchor.
[274]
So, the next time you're given an
anchor, take a minute to think.
[278]
Remember what happens when you
[280]
drop your anger too high, and then
[282]
consider thinking of a
very different number.
[285]
It might affect your final estimate
more than you expect.
[291]
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage