🎯 Relevance (Context-Point of View)
🎯 Relevance (Philosophical Absurdity)
Generally known as cognitive bias and it’s different compared to logical fallacy.
Let’s see deeper from the perspective of METAPhilosophy
Fundamentally, cognitive bias involves drawing conclusions that are overly simplistic. It's disproportionate and unwarranted.
Distinguish it from logical fallacies (logical errors) such as contradictions or others.
In cognitive bias, there's no logical error; rather, the data used to draw conclusions may be insufficient or flawed due to human perceptual weaknesses.
Imagine a process that follows a logical sequence (no logical errors), marked by the entire system functioning according to the manual's operational instructions, but failing to achieve the goal due to human errors like failing to see subtle boundaries (context and perspective).
Another aspect is when there's sufficient data but the positioning involved is in the wrong context with the wrong perspective (different context from the point of view).
- Insufficient Information. For example: accusing someone of indifference when they are actually hiding their concern.
- Habitual Factors. Adequate information exists, but due to habitual factors, rushing to conclusions overlooks other necessary information.
- Different Contexts. Or serving a small portion of food to a child (context - children’s dining area) just because one is used to serving large portions to adults (context - adult dining area).
- Different Perspectives. For instance, mistaking the number "6" for "9" due to a different angle of perspective.
There are many forms of systematic weaknesses, but fundamentally, cognitive bias often leads, unwittingly, to misplacement of context/perspective or hasty conclusions that overlook crucial elements.
Some of these are philosophical absurdity.
Solution
The solution to overcoming cognitive bias involves standardizing and repeatedly checking priority sequences to minimize misperceptions (not misunderstandings).
