You probably think you are completely in control of your decisions and thoughts... But how often are they driven by something else? With something you don't even notice happening deep inside your mind... Here are 21 cognitive mind traps, delusions, biases and other phenomena that exist in your brain. Strange things that are built into all human minds. You can go through life or well into adulthood completely unaware that you carry these thinking errors and mental shortcuts that affect your everyday thinking. You cannot turn them off or erase them from your brain. But being one of the few people who can notice when they pop into your mind and knowing in which situations they are likely to influence your decision-making is one of the first steps to becoming a more thoughtful and rational thinker.

This 2-part series is largely inspired by the works of Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his incredible book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

**Cognitive Dissonance**

The fox crept up to the vine. She stared intently at the juicy, purple, overripe grapes. She tried to reach the grapes, but it was too high. Frustrated, she tried again. She jumped up, but didn't get close to the fruit. She jumped a third time, this time landing hard with a thump. Still no grapes. The fox turned her nose up, "I don't really care. Just grapes that aren't even ripe. Why would I want sour grapes?" She returned to the forest. This is one of Aesop's fables and also where we get the term "Sour Grapes". The fox had 3 choices: Get to the grapes, admit that she wasn't smart and/or skilled enough to get to the grapes, reinterpret the situation in retrospect. Or simply put, create a new belief that conflicts with the first belief. When we choose option three, and have two held beliefs that conflict with each other, that is an example of cognitive dissonance. If you interview for a job, but someone else gets it. Instead of concluding that the other person was better, you tell yourself that the job wasn't good anyway, or that the interviewer was unfair. When people can't get what they want. They often tell themselves that this is not what they wanted. You think all rich people are greedy and evil... but you also want to be rich, the dissonance leads to discomfort, mental stress and anxiety. If the dissonance becomes more intense, it can lead to depression. If you notice a dissonance, you must choose one. Because when it comes to cognitive dissonance, as Rolf Dobelli says "You can pretend to be as smart as a fox all you want—but you'll never get the grapes that way."

**Spotlight Effect**

You arrive 5 minutes late to work and feel like everyone is judging you. It's your first day at the gym and you feel like everyone is watching you. You spill a small amount of sauce on your shirt and feel so embarrassed because you think the whole crew will notice! The spotlight effect is a phenomenon in which people tend to believe that people are watching them more than they really are. People are rarely as interested in you and your actions as you think they are, so do yourself a favor, stop overestimating how much people are watching you, and reduce the anxiety that is probably just a result of the spotlight effect.

**Anchoring Effect**

Whenever we have to guess something - Let's say the population of Russia - we use anchors. We start with something that we know for sure is true, OK so it has to be greater than 1. It has to be less than 7 billion and it's less than the population of China..... We take these anchors and then we explore the unknown area. Unfortunately, we use anchors when we don't need them. Stop right now and look at these questions. Is the height of the tallest sequoia tree greater or less than 1,200 feet? What is your best estimate of the height of the tallest sequoia tree? If we were to ask group A these two questions and group B these 2 questions..... We would get consistently very different answers.... Because of the anchoring effect. But the anchoring effect does not only apply to numbers that act informative as in the tree example, According to Kahneman "....Anchors that are apparently random can be just as effective as potentially informative anchors" An experiment was conducted on German judges. With an average experience of 15 years. Each judge read a description of the woman who shoplifted. They were then asked to roll a pair of dice, which were rigged so that the sum was only 3 or 9. As soon as the dice stopped, they were asked to answer how long they would sentence this woman. Judges who scored 9 gave her an average sentence of 8 months. The judges who got 3 gave her a sentence of 5 months on average. The researchers found that the anchoring effect affected their judgments. Numerous other studies using arbitrary numbers such as the last digits of telephone numbers or social security numbers have also confirmed our anchoring bias. In sales and negotiations, Anchors are used all the time, and there will always be people willing and able to set this mind trap and use the anchoring effect against you. The car dealer sets the price high from the start, so the price they actually want to get from you looks like a good deal. A $150 dress at the beginning of the store anchors a $50 dress on sale at the back of the store. Online stores, salary negotiations and business deals are all terrains for the anchoring effect. And it's one of our most powerful biases. You can't turn it off, but you can remind yourself of your vulnerability to it and try to proactively set your own mental anchors before entering any sales or negotiation environment. "They sent us the asking price of the house, let's not let this number influence our thinking. Let's put it aside. Do our own analysis and come up with our own number" "Our goal in this negotiation is to make the first move and anchor them to this number".

**Aura Effect**

What do you think of Alan and Ben? Alan is intelligent--hard-working--impulsive--critical--stubborn--envious. Ben is envious--stubborn--critical--impulsive--hard-working--intelligent. If you're like most people, you see Alan in a better light than Ben... Even though the listed traits are exactly the same. When it comes to the aura effect, order is important. Greater weight is given to the first piece of information we receive. The first piece of information helps us quickly create a story about a person or situation in our minds. Sure, Alan is stubborn and envious, but that's because he's intelligent and wants to win in business. Yes, Ben is intelligent... but he uses that intelligence in enviable ways... The aura effect occurs when one, initial aspect of a person or thing determines and affects or "shadows" how we see the whole picture. When you first start seeing someone, both parties in the relationship are on their best behavior. You begin to develop auras of positive thoughts around that person. Small traits that you don't like may start to pop out but often go unnoticed because the "auras", positive emotions and initial information you have gathered about the person blinds any negativity. The honeymoon phase of a relationship is often when the aura effect affects your judgment the most. If we learn that someone graduated from a prestigious university, the aura effect will distort all the other traits we attribute to that person without any evidence. Bernie Madoff was a darling of Wall Street, a legendary investor. The incredible returns and reputation of his company was the halo that made people conclude that his company was also trustworthy. Halo overshadowed numbers that didn't make sense and the fact that he was running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Numerous studies have shown that attractive people are automatically perceived as kinder, more sincere and more intelligent. The aura effect can also be found in schools. If a student answers 2 essay questions and the teacher gives a high grade to the first essay question, they tend to subconsciously give more weight to that and give the second essay question a higher grade as well, and vice versa for low grades. In a work environment, the standard practice of most meetings is to have open discussions about the topic, Daniel Kainman in the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," argues that it is better to gather independent judgments about the topic from everyone in the group before the topic is discussed because they are often the opinions of the first people to speak are given too much weight and influence the group's input... especially if the boss speaks first. Modern research suggests that the old adage "First impressions last" turns out to be true. After meeting someone for the first time, our judgment of that person can affect us long into the future. We jump to conclusions and our perception of true characteristics is distorted by the aura effect. To combat this, try to go over the first look of someone or something and pick apart the mistake. Remember, your brain is trying to help you by making the most complete story it can from the limited information it's given, the problem is that these "mental short stories" we tell ourselves about a person or thing are often inaccurate to reality. "He doesn't know anything about her character, all he cares about is how beautiful she is, she is subject to the aura effect" "This new applicant graduated from Harvard, has no experience in a similar position, but I think we should interview her anyway" "Let's gather ideas independently on this topic before the meeting, I don't want my ideas to influence the group"

**Gambler's Fallacy**

Three times, a coin is tossed and lands on heads each time. Let's say someone gets you to bet thousands of dollars of your own money on the next roll. Would you bet heads or letters? If you think like most people, you will almost always choose the letter, although the head is just as likely. But why? We believe in some sort of balancing force in the Universe. If we were to ask people to choose which sequence is more likely, most would choose the above sequence. But both sequences are equally likely. We generally underestimate the probability that sequences occur by chance. We are guided by the belief that something has to change because of the gambling fallacy. However, there is no such balancing force, a coin cannot remember that it landed heads 3 times in a row, a ball cannot remember that it just landed on black. Casinos love the gambling fallacy because it creates the illusion in the gambler's mind that they can predict where the next "balance" of the dice or roulette will go. This fallacy can be applied anywhere there is a sequence of decisions. That uncomfortable feeling you get when you've answered C's 5 times in a row on a multiple choice test is exactly this fallacy at work. A University of Chicago review found that asylum judges were 19% less likely to approve an asylum seeker if they had just approved the previous two. The same person applying for a loan was more likely to be approved for a loan if the previous two applications were rejected and was more likely to be rejected if the previous two applications were approved. Similar findings were found in baseball umpires. Take a closer look at the independent and interdependent events around you. Independent events are not influenced by the balancing forces of nature.

**Contrast Effect**

If you see some leather seats for $3000, they may seem a bit expensive. However, if you're buying an $80,000 car, adding a $3,000 leather seat seems like next to nothing. Research shows that people will walk an extra 10 minutes if it means saving $10 on food. However, almost no one would walk ten minutes to save $10 on a $1000 suit. It's easy to think that something is attractive, big, or expensive when it's next to something ugly, small, or cheap. Absolute estimates can be difficult to make. Try catching yourself the next time you go shopping to see if your purchasing decisions are influenced by the Contrast Effect.

**Hidden Confirmation**

You have an existing belief about something. You look for evidence to support that belief, which further strengthens the belief. And you continue this cycle, and you continue to strengthen the belief. If you encounter evidence that does not support your belief, you filter out the disproving evidence and your brain actively "forgets" it after a short time. This is a hidden confirmation. The tendency to interpret new data so that it becomes compatible with our existing theories and beliefs. Our brains are wired to maintain beliefs, not to easily accept new ones. Because accepting new beliefs is psychologically exhausting. Unlike the Scientific Method, where you form a hypothesis or ask a question, you gather evidence and then test the hypothesis. This is hard work!, and may involve some uncomfortable truths. For these reasons, most people prefer the easy path that makes them happy. Jon begins with a simple theory or belief. He turns to Google. He subconsciously looks for the first information that confirms his belief and ignores the rest. Philosophers of science would tell us to try to disprove a hypothesis. But Rarely do people actively try to find rebuttal evidence. To make matters worse, the biggest platforms are now tailoring content to personal interests and search history, amplifying hidden confirmation on a massive scale. We find ourselves in like-minded communities, also called echo chambers, which reinforces our beliefs - and the hidden confirmation becomes stronger. The more you adjust the facts to match your beliefs, the narrower your perspective becomes, until that narrow reality becomes all you can see. Hidden confirmation is the beginning of "I'm always right ego" ...especially in political discourse. What planet do they live on? They have to live in an alternate reality?! "I'm absolutely right about everything, look at all the facts on my side..." As opposing perspectives narrow, discourse about facts that are interpreted differently becomes nearly impossible as both sides of the argument see the evidence through the prism of their theories and seek only what which confirms their existing beliefs. According to Daniel Kahneman, "The surest way to get people to believe a lie is to repeat it often, because familiarity cannot be easily distinguished from truth." When people hear the same thing enough times, the facts can easily be forgotten. Echo chambers are flywheels for frequent repetition and dissemination of ideas. The same ideas are shared, liked and repeated and any new beliefs are quickly dismissed. All divergent thinking and opinions begin to disappear. There is no way to eliminate hidden confirmation, only ways to reduce its impact on you. The first is simply to become aware that this mind trap exists, if time allows you to think, try to "Think Gray". If you really want to become an independent thinker, you need to explore the gray areas and expand beyond the collective mind of the group. Get information from a variety of sources and avoid being influenced into a belief because others tell you to think or it has been repeated enough times to accept it as truth. Hidden confirmation narrows perspective, Broaden your perspective, in most cases the objective facts lie somewhere in between in the gray area.

**Baader-Meinhof phenomenon**

You buy a certain brand of car, and suddenly you start seeing that car everywhere, where you never saw it before. When you learn a new word or concept, you suddenly start seeing it everywhere in your life. You start thinking, "Wow, this is weird, How come I've never seen this word in my life and now I've seen it 3 times this week or why do I keep seeing these new shoes everywhere I go now, they must become so popular. Phenomenon The Baader-Meinhoff illusion is where, after you notice something for the first time, you tend to notice it more often. This happens when increased awareness of something creates the illusion that it appears more often. This phenomenon is reinforced by two other biases, the Recency Effect occurrences, which magnifies the importance of recent stimuli, and implicit confirmation, which confirms in your mind these strange coincidences that you think are happening and then keeps you constantly confirming that these coincidences must have some meaning. Basically, our brains are master machines for recognizing patterns that always look for meaning in data What's amazing is all the patterns and stimuli that flood you every day that your brain simply ignores because they're not in your awareness. We only see the things we are looking for. In reality, you've most likely seen that word or car several times, but your mind just wasn't interested in noticing it.

**The Zeigarnik Effect**

We can almost always remember unfinished tasks, but we easily forget completed tasks. Simply put, unfinished tasks will stay in our memory longer than completed tasks. It was originally believed that the only way to prevent the Zeigarnik Effect from eating away at our thoughts was to complete unfinished tasks, however further research into the Zeigarnik Effect revealed that simply having or writing down a plan to complete a task is enough to stop the effect. So if you find yourself lying awake at night with those unfinished tasks weighing you down, grab a pen and pad and quickly jot down a plan to get the job done. Putting tasks from your head to paper combats this effect and will give you more peace of mind.

**Paradox of Choice**

Two experiments were conducted in the supermarket. In the first experiment, 24 different types of jam were available for free trial and purchase at a reduced price. In the second experiment, only 6 different types of jams were available for free trial and purchase at a reduced price. The first experiment attracted 60% of customers and 3% bought jam. The second experiment attracted 40% of customers and 30% bought jam. Although more customers were initially attracted by the greater variety... With less choice, the supermarket managed to sell 10 times more jams. This is the paradox of choice. For most people, a large selection of any product is considered a net positive. But when the number of choices exceeds a certain threshold, our subjective state becomes negative and leads to internal paralysis and decision fatigue. The paradox of choice can also be found in modern dating. In the past, you would marry people you met locally. We have too many choices today, and you might think that all that variety would make finding the perfect partner easier, but more optimal decisions can be made when given fewer options to choose from. When faced with a small number of options, people can easily weigh the pros and cons of each option and be quite happy with whichever option they choose. When faced with a large number of options, it is more difficult to know which option is the best, the more options, the greater the chance of feeling regret. With more options, the more you feel the need to compare. The attractive features of the alternatives reduce the satisfaction in your final choice. Even if we made a great decision, the opportunity costs of other options detract from the overall satisfaction of our choice. Too many choices often lead to people not making a decision and giving up on the venture altogether.

If this was useful to you, take a look at Part 1 of this series.

Although some typographical errors are possible due to translation or other factors, I believe the gist is conveyed in an understandable manner.