#default bias

TRD Pressedienst – Medienkompetenz | Digitales Verhalten (TRD/BNP) Beim Surfen im Internet oder beim Online-Shopping begegnen Nutzer immer wieder digitalen Designmustern, die nicht zufällig gewählt sind. Diese sogenannten „Dark Patterns“ sind gezielte Interface-Strategien, die das Verhalten von Konsumenten beeinflussen – oft subtil, aber wirksam. Sie führen dazu, dass zusätzliche Produkte im…

You know when you're debating something with someone, and they suddenly pull out the "oh, you're just fussing about semantics now" card as a way to curtail the point you're making?  Words are certainly important, but how you frame choices is paramount.  A simple example of this came up on So You Think You Can Dance yesterday when one of the judges reminded dancers that fans are not asked to vote against someone (like on Survivor) but rather vote in support of their favorite dancer.  Mere semantics you say? Think again, it's an absolute game-changer in terms of who stays and who gets sent home. 

Consider the below options on driver license applications: they are two representations of the same question, i.e. whether or not a driver wishes to donate his or her organs. 

The countries that adopt the second question formulation have, on average, a more than 50% higher organ donation rate!  What's more outrageous is that this immense gap has nothing to do with contrasting moral codes but everything to do with a simple behavioral insight: if you want survey applicants to take a certain action, don't require an action on their part (i.e. checking the box).  

Some behavioral economists refer to this as the "default bias" but it refers to the same same issue mentioned earlier regarding voting for, or voting against, a certain thing.  

I was once talking to a psych professor about why it is that you find such discord between parents and their children in first generation families.  Interestingly, she mentioned it had everything to do with how they view life as a result of experience and less about the values that were inculcated in them (my parents came here when I was just a wee one).

Our time here on earth, boiled down to its crude essence, is quite simple: we live and then we die.  It's an unromantic but purely objective statement on every human's life trajectory.  However, here's what we often find in naturalized immigrant families: 

Parents: "WE LIVE NOT TO DIE", i.e. at the very bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  And this is not because parents are old, or boring.  More often than not, this "experience ceiling" is one that's subconsciously self-imposed given their personal experience with war and other atrocities in their home countries.  Attributing it to a generational divide would be misguided. 

Kids: "WE WANT TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST", i.e. do more than just survive.  To a certain degree, this represents a position that comes from the fact that the kids have not had brushes with death and consequently take physiological and safety needs for granted.  Simply put, they expect more out of life.