The "Framing Bias" - a cognitive bias

[TBRS1]

Quick definition: a cognitive bias is a thinking flaw that effects ALL human thinkers. These flaws are "hard wired" into our brains due to human evolutionary history.

Cognitive biases are well studied, well understood, but still occur commonly - even experts who study them professionally freely admit that they fall for them.

One of these thinking flaws is the "Framing Bias."

The idea of the framing bias is that people will interpret the same data in different ways, depending on how the information is given (i.e.: the way it is framed).

Example:

70% = 70,000 /100,000 = 70/100 = 7/10 = 7 out of every 10. Statistically speaking, each of the listed ratios mean exactly the same thing - they are entirely equivalent.

Let's imagine that a person has an annoying, but NOT life threatening medical problem.

This person goes to the doctor who says "There is a surgery available. It is considered very effective, in fact, out of every one hundred thousand people, seventy thousand make a complete recovery, 20% recover with no measurable improvement, and only 10% die during the surgery."

This sounds really good - 70,000 people get better, a few people are unaffected, and a only a tiny number die.


HOWEVER, if the doctor says "Imagine you are in a room with ten people who are getting this surgery. Seven people in the room will get better, two of them will go through the surgery and recovery without any improvement, and one of them will die. Which one will you be?"

That doesn't sound so good. Now, it's personal - Will I be the one out of ten who die? Will I be one of the two out of ten who pays to be cut open, sewn back together, with the expense and time off work and discomfort, who gains absolutely nothing? Or will I be one of the lucky ones?

Same info, same data, same statistics - two very different interpretations.

Explanation: People evolved in small family/clan units. We easily grasp numbers of people up to about 10, but shortly past 10, people stop understanding individuals and switch to "a lot."

The monster, Stalin is often quoted as saying "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic." Don't know if Stalin actually said that, but, unfortunately, it happens to be true.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

If you pay attention to the media, and more specifically, examine the same story from say conservative leaning media versus liberal leaning media. This "framing bias" becomes quite apparent. I have a news app on my phone called "Ground News" and what it does is takes a news story, then shows you all the news outlets reporting on it, then shows you the political bias (left, right, neutral). You can read how either side will frame a story. It's my primary news source. You can also use their website: Ground News

 

[TBRS1]

If you pay attention to the media, and more specifically, examine the same story from say conservative leaning media versus liberal leaning media. This "framing bias" becomes quite apparent. I have a news app on my phone called "Ground News" and what it does is takes a news story, then shows you all the news outlets reporting on it, then shows you the political bias (left, right, neutral). You can read how either side will frame a story. It's my primary news source. You can also use their website: Ground News

Wow. That sounds like one of the most useful apps ever. I will definitely check it out.

I routinely check about 4-5 different news sources, with wildly different slants. That app sounds like a big help!

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Wow. That sounds like one of the most useful apps ever. I will definitely check it out.

I routinely check about 4-5 different news sources, with wildly different slants. That app sounds like a big help!

It is. Saves a lot of time and you know right up front before you read the news article where the bias is going to lean. The idea is that it allows you to quickly see both perspectives on the same topic, making you a better news consumer.

 

[TBRS1]

It is. Saves a lot of time and you know right up front before you read the news article where the bias is going to lean. The idea is that it allows you to quickly see both perspectives on the same topic, making you a better news consumer.

Since you're knowledgeable about the topic, you are most likely already famine with the "Yellow Journalism" era of Pulitzer and Hearst. If not, you might be interested in the history.

It appears that we have returned to a new era of Yellow Journalism.

However, I have a near relative who works for a respected Michigan news source. They are assigned to cover Republican politics in Lansing.

This person take journalistic ethics as seriously as a good doctor takes medical ethics, so there is that...

 

[Jumpinbare]

Even with the journalistic biases removed, I have found that literally every news story that I have had first hand knowledge about have been so inaccurately reported that I know I can't rely on any news outlet. It can't be only the stories I know about that they mess up, it has to be a general thing.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Even with the journalistic biases removed, I have found that literally every news story that I have had first hand knowledge about have been so inaccurately reported that I know I can't rely on any news outlet. It can't be only the stories I know about that they mess up, it has to be a general thing.

So, this is where most people are, I am thinking. I have a difficult time believing that bias can be removed. As a consumer of news, you already take this into account. That's what I like about Ground News. It gives you quick access to several sources on the same topic and allows you to read all of them, knowing the bias, so you can see how things are framed, but also you get a better sense of both sides of the issue, not just one.

 

[Boogs]

Even with the journalistic biases removed, I have found that literally every news story that I have had first hand knowledge about have been so inaccurately reported that I know I can't rely on any news outlet. It can't be only the stories I know about that they mess up, it has to be a general thing.

But then isn't that a reflection on almost all 'normal' human communications?

So, this is where most people are, I am thinking. I have a difficult time believing that bias can be removed.

I would have thought (though lack the education in this area) that biases are going to be pretty much fundamental to the way our minds work? I feel like I'm swimming (floundering) in a morass ranging from uncertainty to downright inaccuracy in many human interactions, and after all we appear to be completely subjective at our core running on experienced based assumptions to fill in the gaps?

 

[Tiffany Kate]

Interestingly, autistic people may be less susceptible to "framing" effects than neurotypicals; we are more likely to base our decisions on logic rather than emotion. (Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia - PMC)

It probably doesn't help a lot when the information has been deliberately distorted before we get it, but we are probably less susceptible to more subtle effects where the information itself hasn't been distorted, but the way it's presented is intended to have an emotional effect.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

But then isn't that a reflection on almost all 'normal' human communications?


I would have thought (though lack the education in this area) that biases are going to be pretty much fundamental to the way our minds work? I feel like I'm swimming (floundering) in a morass ranging from uncertainty to downright inaccuracy in many human interactions, and after all we appear to be completely subjective at our core running on experienced based assumptions to fill in the gaps?

This is often a source of anxiety with some autistics, for sure. For there are those of us who want some certainty in our lives and seek out truth. However, other than say, mathematics and physics, truth and certainty are rare qualities in the real world.

It takes some degree of intellectual curiosity, time, and energy to seek out truths, and even then, after all of our efforts, we realize that there are too many variables to create any sense of certainty. What the process does though, is create a foundation for wisdom, and perhaps temperance, which seems a noble pursuit.

 

[TBRS1]

After the era of Yellow Journalism, journalists adopted a "Code of Ethics" attempting to become honest and reliable:

https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/

One thing a person can do is watch their preferred news source and compare their reporting to the ethics list.

It is true that cognitive bias is hard to get around, and some people are more susceptible than others, but everybody falls for them sometimes.

The framing bias works in another odd way - take some cheap grape jelly. Put it in a fancy jar - the jar is now "the frame." Sell the fancy jar of grape jelly for twice as much as the cheap jar.

People will report that the same jam in a fancy jar tastes better. People are inherently silly.

 

[Boogs]

Interestingly, autistic people may be less susceptible to "framing" effects than neurotypicals; we are more likely to base our decisions on logic rather than emotion. (Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia - PMC)

Certainly for my 'flavour' of condition(s) I can see how I'm (or at least I believe I do) less prone to many bias's I see in others. Sometimes it's screamingly obvious but I learned that the more obvious it appears to me the less likely others will acknowledge it if it's pointed out in them.

Often devolving into a slanging match since if I'm correct they don't have a rational argument to refute it, but being a bias they are unable to see that, and we tend to dislike being shown our flaws (showing weakness) and especially before others.

I unfortunately have my own biases (of course) that I can't see and they can, and I have to remind myself that to temper the risk of arrogance (which I tend to come across as anyway) on seeing their biases.

It probably doesn't help a lot when the information has been deliberately distorted before we get it, but we are probably less susceptible to more subtle effects where the information itself hasn't been distorted, but the way it's presented is intended to have an emotional effect.

I sometimes think there's a sort of fuzzy logic going on in most normal minds that somehow manages to put across enough genuine information that despite all the biases and misinterpretations etc. humans still manage to make it a net gain rather than not. It's a complex and strange mechanism which I can't easily express (especially since it may be my delusion).
In a way comparable (in end result) to how an LLM AI sort of averages out the totality of it's relevant training data to usually come up with an essentially correct answer despite that training data not always being accurate in itself.
(That's a poor metaphor but best I can think of right now).

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Interestingly, autistic people may be less susceptible to "framing" effects than neurotypicals; we are more likely to base our decisions on logic rather than emotion. (Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia - PMC)

It probably doesn't help a lot when the information has been deliberately distorted before we get it, but we are probably less susceptible to more subtle effects where the information itself hasn't been distorted, but the way it's presented is intended to have an emotional effect.

Perhaps, however, exceptions occur when it comes to situations where some of us are marginalized, are victims of physical or mental abuse, are struggling with interpersonal relations, etc. logic seems to be a rare commodity. It's nearly all emotional content and bias.

There are other topics, here, as well that take on a less logical perspective such as religion, politics, wealthy individuals who are influencers, etc.

I would agree that those that experience alexithymia and are systems-type thinkers (like me) do sort things out primarily via logical processes, but certain topics (people who mentally and physically abuse) can also flip me into an emotional thinker.

 

[Boogs]

This is often a source of anxiety with some autistics, for sure. For there are those of us who want some certainty in our lives and seek out truth. However, other than say, mathematics and physics, truth and certainty are rare qualities in the real world.

I'd go further myself (in part being unable to manage any complex abstract math or any other method of 'proof') to say that truth is a flexible thing according to it's context and nature, and who is asking (for that truth); certainty likewise is abstract and maybe more a matter of pragmatism (i.e. we have to start all logical arguments with some sort of assumptions being made, or make little progress)?

I may be being pedantic here (unintentionally) but I'd prefer using 'fact' rather than truth and certainty. That of course doesn't remove those elements of uncertainty, rather repositions them I think, but that may well be more just me being me.

My only mode of conscious cognition of which I can determine in myself is using logic and this seems to come from the subconscious more than the conscious side. It's like a sort of real-time fact checker running in the background below my level of awareness and I get sort of virtual alarm bells when I take in something that breaks the logical progression.

In some ways the current popularity for popularity at any cost (most of all at the cost of honesty, integrity and trust) has made it easier to see the lies because instead of lies hidden between truths where the subconscious expectation is they are all true and accurate, we have a sea of inaccuracies in which the truths are the minority - i.e. the assumption is there will almost always be inaccuracies.

The lies will always fold under examination using intellectual methodologies, heck, most of them can't stand up to basic common sense ...
And yet they do!
It's a dangerous game those with power are playing in encouraging that, and I fear it's an uncontrollable beast and that by poking it so much, one day it's going to wake up and show what an uncontrollable force of nature can do.

I think this may have something to do with the recent virulent attacks on intellectuals - scientists, academics, authors, artists, professional experts in their fields, people who can generally cut through the BS with ease and have the implicit power of being able to make things work.
In fact it reflects the social treatment of smiths and similar back in the past where the ability to forge a weapon or tool in a material harder and sharper and more effective than anything else around was considered to be magic and those skills made the smiths hugely powerful and people rightly feared great armies all armoured and tooled up with these magical unstoppable weapons and controlled by the only people who could provide that armour and weaponry.
So they were often ostracised and made to live outside of mainstream society, often even physically - refused residence in the villages, living by providing the villages with what they needed in return for food and other resources (and limited acceptance and protection), never allowed to become too powerful - a mistake modern society has made and now suffers for it.

Our modern day 'magicians' have succeeded in casting a spell that's the biggest lie of all, beneath which all their blatant lies can be openly stated, even admitted to but excused as necessary (Vance and the 'migrants eating pets' event). This has become normalised through the amplification of social media and the human weakness to manipulation through repetition.

[Caveat: BTW, all my rantings are the world as Boog's see's, nothing more, I'm not saying I'm right (or that it makes sense for that matter)! ]

 

[Boogs]

The framing bias works in another odd way - take some cheap grape jelly. Put it in a fancy jar - the jar is now "the frame." Sell the fancy jar of grape jelly for twice as much as the cheap jar.

People will report that the same jam in a fancy jar tastes better. People are inherently silly.

Maybe not so silly when viewed outside the framing of our modern society?

I would imagine that the external appearance of things to be extremely important from an evolutionary perspective, as this would often be one of the first sensory inputs when resource collecting, which is one of the most fundamental and unchanging aspects of evolving life - it's a battle for vital resources against your own species, and all the others, who compete for the same things directly or indirectly.

The faster you can recognise the most promising source of resource the more likely you'll profit from it. Home in on the apples that are ripe and unspoiled from their outward appearance and you've a better chance of getting the most nutritious fruit vs. your competitors.

So by using psychological rules an outward aesthetic can be tailored to be more intuitively attractive to people and favour their choosing that product over a rival one that's exactly the same inside it's packaging.

 

[UFO]

Interestingly, autistic people may be less susceptible to "framing" effects than neurotypicals; we are more likely to base our decisions on logic rather than emotion. (Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia - PMC)

This notion might appear as framing bias of its own considering how flattering it is to self-esteem and ego

Clarification: As mentioned above, this would work best if we would be completely logical without emotional aspect. But we are not... Sentence above is framed in such way that this condition is not mentioned.

 

[TBRS1]

When people lie, they CAN succeed if people are ignorant of relevant facts.

However, humans have an amazing ability to be ignorant of data that conflicts with their already held beliefs.

My conclusion is that people who believe lies know (on some level) that they are being liedd to, and that they are choosing to believe the lie.

This creates cognitive dissonance.

It is the mind's attempt to deal with the discomfort of cognitive dissonance that causes folks to lash out angrily when confronted by information they do not want to hear, as well as all the crosstalk in which people keep repeating their own talking points while simultaneously ignoring out-of-hand every point raised by their opposition.

In short - people choose to believe the lies they want to believe, and fight those who refuse to believe those same lies.

 

[Boogs]

I think I'll invent a new bias and name it the Bias bias.
This is when we believe everyone with whom we disagree is biased while we are not!

 

[TBRS1]

Maybe not so silly when viewed outside the framing of our modern society?

I would imagine that the external appearance of things to be extremely important from an evolutionary perspective, as this would often be one of the first sensory inputs when resource collecting, which is one of the most fundamental and unchanging aspects of evolving life - it's a battle for vital resources against your own species, and all the others, who compete for the same things directly or indirectly.

The faster you can recognise the most promising source of resource the more likely you'll profit from it. Home in on the apples that are ripe and unspoiled from their outward appearance and you've a better chance of getting the most nutritious fruit vs. your competitors.

So by using psychological rules an outward aesthetic can be tailored to be more intuitively attractive to people and favour their choosing that product over a rival one that's exactly the same inside it's packaging.

Exactly - evolution primes people to intuitively quickly pick "the best bet."

But we don't live in the world as it was 50,000 years ago.

Now, clever people use these things to sell stuff.

Experiment: Go to a wine store that displays the "rating" for a wine. The rating is based on blindfolded taste testing.

Compare ratings with prices - above the level of $10, rating and price are completely unrelated. A $10 wine might be rated at 94 (very good) while a $45 bottle has a rating of 32 (bland).

The fancy label, name of the winery, and price are the "frame."

 

[Boogs]

My conclusion is that people who believe lies know (on some level) that they are being liedd to, and that they are choosing to believe the lie.

I would tend to agree with that, but it runs on levels that can't (imho) be simply categorised as one or t'other.
Take phatic communication, that can carry vast amounts of information from person to person when the words themselves may not really even make sense when seen written down, and yet the audience have no problem picking up the underlying emotive message.

To be able to converse in this way is almost completely beyond me, and in fact I rarely put much actual emotion in my messages (beyond my subconscious) but find a lot of 'normal' people read all sorts of messages in my text that I'd never even thought about never mind intended to put across.

It's a double-whammy to boot - not only do many people make the wrong interpretation of what I'm trying to say, but in doing so they also lose the message I am deliberately trying to put across.