The Epistemic Matrix: Cognitive Biases, Context and Overcoming Irrationality

platos-caveThe following is a talk I gave at ACR-GNY

If you could sum up the literature on cognitive biases, human irrationality, and popular books that outline all the way in which we screw up, it would go something like this: we only require a small amount of information, usually just a single fact, to confidently form seemingly objective, but almost entirely subjective and inaccurate, worldviews. Ironically, the less information we have about a topic, the more confident we are about it.

The feeling of certainty might be our default setting. We spend most of our mental life confirming our opinions and not questioning them, even when those opinions involve complex issues. We believe we understand the details of the world, even though our folk theories are usually incomplete. The sad reason rationality exists might not be to seek truth, but to argue and persuade. Our frontal lobes may have evolved to be lawyers, not judges.

Rene Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy for a number of reasons. He valued reason and skepticism, and by writing his magnum opus Discourse on the Method in the first person, he shifted the focus from God to the individual. And when Descartes turned inward and contemplated the implications of our ability to think about thinking, he triggered a number of metaphysical brainteasers: Are we living in a simulation? Is what we call “reality” a dream world? Years later, these questions became the basis for the 1999 thriller The Matrix.

I’d like to outline a different kind of matrix – not a metaphysical illusion but an epistemological delusion. In this world you believe that you are a genius living amongst idiots. You rarely feel wrong, and when you realize you are, you rationalize. This reality, of course, is your default setting, and I term it the epistemic matrix. It applies to everyone, and that’s the problem. It gives us the illusion of infallibility – the idea that we occupy a special place in the universe.

If everyone is effectively delusional about what they think they know – and I hope to make that clear – the question is if you can break out of the epistemic matrix. To do so – to take the blue pill, so to speak, – I invite you to learn some cognitive psychology.

First, I’ll talk about three experiments that highlight our almost unlimited ability to be ignorant of our ignorance.

Second, I will move outside the head to talk about how context influences behavior, and the mistakes we make when we judge others

Third, I’ll talk about how simply learning about biases does not eliminate them.

And finally, I’ll suggest how we might break out of the epistemic matrix. I hope that in this last section I may provide some valuable advice for you to walk away with.


One of the first empirical accounts of a cognitive bias comes from a landmark paper published in 1954. Here’s the background. Years earlier, in November 1951, Dartmouth and Princeton played an especially vicious football game. After the game, a reporter for The Daily Princetonian wrote that, “Both teams were guilty but the blame must be laid primarily on Dartmouth’s doorstep.” Dartmouth’s student newspaper fired back, suggesting that an injury to one of Princeton’s star players was, “no more serious than is experienced almost any day in any football practice.”

Weeks later, two psychologists invited Princeton and Dartmouth students to watch the film of the game and answer a series of questions about it. They found, predictably, lopsided responses. Princeton students counted twice as many penalties committed by Dartmouth players. And the Dartmouth students only noticed half as many penalties committed by Dartmouth players.

This finding influenced decades of research examining our tendency to look for what confirms our beliefs and to ignore everything else, or what the psychologist Peter Wason termed Confirmation Bias.

Another revealing study, published in 1990, comes from Elizabeth Newton. In it, Newton assigned participants to one of two roles: “tappers” or “listeners.” The job of the tappers was straightforward: they received a list of 25 well-known songs (e.g., Happy Birthday and The Star-Spangled Banner), picked one, and tapped it out to a listener by tapping on a table. The listener’s job was also straightforward: guess the song.

The listeners struggled. 120 songs were tapped and they only guessed 3 correctly – that’s 2.5 percent. Here’s the revealing part. The tappers estimated that the listeners would guess the songs correctly 50 percent of the time. In other words, the tappers thought 1 of 2 songs would get through, while in reality they only succeeded 1 of 40 times.

Finally, let me tell you about a particularly clever study conducted years ago. Imagine that an experiment hands you a list of every devices – a piano key, a sewing machine, a zipper – and asks you to indicate how much you understand how each item works. Next you are tasked with writing a detailed step-by-step causal description of four items from the list. The question is: Could you?

In a series of 12 experiments, the experimenters discovered that when participants tried to explain how an everyday device worked they realized that they had no idea what they were talking about – even though they indicated to the contrary at the beginning of the experiment. Although it seems like we know how something like a zipper works – we use it everyday, after all – when we stop to think about the details we realize our ignorance. The two psychologists behind this study termed this the illusion of explanatory depth.

What does this research tell us? At least three things, and they nicely illustrate the idea of the epistemic matrix. 1) Even if two people are exposed to the same information – such as the Princeton and Dartmouth students – it’s possible for them to arrive at different conclusions. 2) We self-project what we know onto others, as the tappers illustrated. And 3) we’re overconfident with respect to what we know, or what we think we know.


Next, let’s take a less cerebral perspective and talk about context. Another essential feature of the epistemic matrix is the idea that when we explain social behavior, we overestimate personality and underestimate context. Psychologists term this the fundamental attribution error. I like to describe it as the naïve belief that we are geniuses living in a world of idiots. Or, as Scott Adams of Dilbert fame says, “We rarely recognize our own idiocies, yet we can clearly identify the idiocies of others.”

For example, let’s say your waiting at a stoplight. The light turns green and you accelerate. Out of nowhere, a driver speeds through the red light and you slam on your breaks. He is reckless, perhaps drunk, you conclude – there is something about his disposition that put you in danger. Right? Of course, it’s also possible that he was on his way to the hospital because his wife was in labor. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible.

We make this mistake all the time: in line for groceries, in the subway, at the check out counter at the airport. The classic example from psychological literature comes from a 1967 study conducted by Edward Jones and Victor Harris. They asked participants to assess if a person was pro or anti-Castro based on an essay that person wrote. There were two groups. In one, the researchers told participants that the essayists chose to write the pro or anti-Castro essay. In the second group, researchers told participants that a coin flip determined the position the essayists took. Predictably, the participants in the first group rated the essayists as having more positive or negative feelings towards Castro – this makes sense. After all, they willfully their position. However, participants in the second group showed the same effect. They still rated essayists who wrote positively about Castro as having a positive view of Castro, or vice versa, – even though a coin flips determine their position they took for the essay.

Sam Sommers, Tufts Professor of Psychology and author of Situations Matter: Understanding How Context Transforms Your World sums up the fundamental attribution error like this:

We assume that the behavior we observe of another person at a particular point in time provides an accurate glimpse of the “true product” within. The waiter who screwed up our order? We label him incompetent. The colleague who won’t return our e-mails? She’s inconsiderate. The actor who delivers the knockout soliloquy? He’s articulate.

The takeaway from Sommers’ book is that cooperation is difficult when we don’t consider how context influences behavior, and over emphasize the notion that within everybody is a fixed self, unchanged from each moment to the next. Until you recognize the power of context, conflict will flourish.


With this in mind, let’s return to the question: How do we escape the epistemic matrix? I’d like to make a critical point here: Awareness is not the answer, and it may actually make things worse.

Consider a 2002 paper by Emily Pronin, a Professor of Psychology at Princeton, and her two colleagues, Daniel Lin and Lee Ross. Their experiment was straightforward. The psychologists gave participants three surveys that explained how people see the existence of biases much more in others than themselves. After the participants read the surveys they received a follow-up questionnaire asking them to rate how susceptible they were to biases. Here’s the question: would knowing that most people falsely discount how susceptible they are to biases influence the participants to see the existence of biases in themselves more clearly?

Pronin and her colleagues found that after learning about how commonplace biases are the participants actually reported that were more immune from them. The researchers concluded the following:

The results of our three studies suggest that knowledge of particular biases in human judgment and inference, and the ability to recognize the impact of those biases on others, neither prevents one from succumbing nor makes one aware of having done so.

Here’s where things get meta. How did you interpret this piece of research? Did you conclude that the participants were foolish? Or did you conclude that you would have committed the same error?

The problem with thinking errors is that learning about them gives us the false conviction that our judgment is better. The overlooked reason is that there are two components to every bias. The first is the bias itself. Confirmation bias, for example, is our tendency to seek out confirmation information while ignoring everything else. The second is the belief that everyone else is susceptible to thinking errors, but not you. This itself is a bias – bias blind spot, as Pronin and her colleagues termed it – that blinds you from your errors. We intuitively believe that we correct for biases after being exposed to them, but this is normally an illusion arising from the bias blind spot.


If awareness does not help, what does?

In his famed 2005 commencement address at Kenyon College, David Foster Wallace tells the following parable. Two young fish are swimming along when an older fish approaches and asks: good morning boys, how’s the water? Later on, one fish turns to the other and says: “What the hell is water.”

Wallace’s point is that, “the most obvious and important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about.” This may sound like a banal platitude, Wallace observes, but in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, being mindful of banal platitudes and spending energy to distill their significance is essential for well-being.

This is my solution for breaking out of the epistemic matrix – mindfulness.

What is it?

In contrast to introspection, which usually only affirms beliefs and increases overconfidence, mindfulness involves observing without questioning. If the takeaway from research on cognitive biases is not simply that thinking errors exist but the belief that we are immune from them, then the virtues of mindfulness is pausing to observe our errors in a non-evaluative way. We spend a lot of energy protecting our egos instead of considering our faults. Mindfulness may help reverse this.

Here is a more academic sounding definition from Erika Carlson.

Mindfulness has been broadly defined as nonevaluative, non- elaborative attention to and awareness of one’s current experience, or “nonjudgmental observation of the ongoing stream of internal and external stimuli as they arise”. One of the most widely used operational definitions of mindfulness highlights two core components: attention to one’s current experience and nonevaluative observation of that experience.

Psychological experimentation of the last few decades suggests a number benefits linked to mindfulness: increased concentration, reduced stress and, critically, healthier social relationships. However, current research has not agreed on a cohesive definition of mindfulness, and it’s unclear what direction the casual arrow points. At the same time, future research looks promising, especially for conflict resolution.

In conclusion, although I painted a rather pessimistic picture of human rationality, I’d like to clarify that we are capable of critical self-analysis – we can reflect and avoid harmful thinking errors. Reason is one of our “better angels,” as Steven Pinker notes, and it has nudged us towards cooperation and away from violence.

However, in order to use reason to our advantage – in order to cooperate and erase the belief that we are geniuses living in a world of idiots – we must also stop trying to “correct” or “eradicate” thinking errors. They’re here to stay, as they are likely an innate feature of cognition. Rather, we should use our front lobes to be more mindful. That means pausing to realize that the mind filters the world selectively, and in the process it effectively creates a new world that blinds us from the truth: that we are average people living in a world of average people, and that we’d be better when we recognized this.




10 Responses to “The Epistemic Matrix: Cognitive Biases, Context and Overcoming Irrationality”

  1. troy

    I think Yoda would agree with you.

    • Silvia

      The jury example may alucalty be important to include in the final paper because it includes an interesting point. We have to remember that there are three steps to every argument, and within each step, a way to fail. With an insufficient number of (or simply poor) premises, we are ignorant. When the connection between these premises fails to use logic, we are illogical. If we ignore our conclusions, we are irrational. A lot of work has been done in the field of rationality, but that doesn’t seem to deal much with competence. For instance, the jury example is an example of accurate premises (assuming the trial lawyers did an adequate job), where logic was misused. We use this instead of other jury dilemmas, such as those that take the form of Condorcet’s Paradox or a similar concept.Next, we have to decide whether corruption is a form of incompetence. If we say that corruption is not a form of incompetence, we are left to create standards for knowledge (to avoid ignorance) and the ability to use logic (avoiding illogic) that politicians are to be held by. As politicians are elected as representatives by normal, presumably reasonable people, I believe they should be held more highly than to the reasonable person standard, though that would require quite a bit of conjecture to establish.If we consider corruption as a form of incompetence, we need to establish a standard for this as well. Is bowing to lobbying a form of corruption, or do we draw the line at inappropriate quid pro quo?

    • Vjollca

      Hey KellyI wanted to know more about this kind of Time Remap told by Simone, so i just secarh for Time Track on the Help menu, and there is the explanation for the technique that you questioned.It’s a long (for the Help standard) tutorial, that starts with this phrase: Take your time in reading the next pages because the possibilities of CINEMA 4D’s time control offers are virtually one-of-a-kind good luck! And great tutorial, Nick!(sorry for the brazilian english ;D)

  2. Mike Marinos

    It such a relief to come across this antidote to “heroic” humanism. I am currently reading the biography of Pol Pot by Philip Short. The “Epistemic Matrix” can be seen operating as the regime pours more and more resources (and killing) into making the external world mirror their internal world view. Failures were interpreted not as feedback that their world view was wrong but that the regime had not applied itself forcefully enough to effect the change on the external world.

  3. Shaun

    A group of us meets for coffee once a week, and consists of 3 lefties and one right winger. I’m a lefty, and I know the tea party guy comes across to the rest of us as insane. Naturally he thinks the same thing about us. This seems to be the basic political system of every country, where tribalism takes over and its them against us all the time. However, being a student of Nietzsche’s perspectivalism,I feel there must be a way of gaining from the sum of all the viewpoints rather than ” I’m right and you’re wrong”. Your approach is a step taken towards a better way of thinking about biases and politics in general. Thanks.

    • David

      that throughout our hisrtoy, the reputation of a politician is never one that is amiable. Politicians are seen as corrupt men (or women) who would lie about the ideas they intend to uphold in order to obtain votes. This is nothing new or shocking. Yet, we as Americans, hold what they preach should be what they practice. Politicians who promote family values but then are seen once in term to not be an example of what they were elected for (no names shall be mentioned). These men and women of of course hiding their own prejudices and biases behind the banner of family values . However, I do not think this could be said of all politicians. I do believe that there are some, maybe even less than the minority, who are true to their word and who do hope to change America for the better. The topic of race has always been a question, especially in politics. But I feel America if anything is becoming a less racial country and what used to be seen as racial issues are starting to be less and less common. While I do agree that there are many politicians who are just like the slave owners, promoting their own agenda under the guise of family values , yet I believe the idealist in me wants to disagree, to say that there must be some politicians that are different, and are true to their word, just like there were some slave owners who did treat their slaves relatively well (and did not split up the families). These figures might be quite small, but they must exist.

      • Tinmoe

        I believe that ptiiolcians who promote “family values” are just hiding their own biases and prejudices under a banner of morality . As we saw in the article linked above, ptiiolcians or in that case slave owners try to portray the current conditions as much better than they actually are. Politicians always attempt to make illustrate their views in a positive light. For example, ptiiolcians like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum made the statement that African American children were more likely to be raised by two parents in the time of slavery as opposed to now. In this case, they both try to make their statement sound positive by referring to the morality of marriage and being raised by two parents while in reality they are promoting slavery. Therefore the two ptiiolcians revealed their real biases and prejudices in a statement hiding behind the morality of marriage which supports my claim. Politicians will make everything they say seem good or for the betterment of people while in reality what they are saying will do just the opposite as we see in Michele Bachmann’s and Rick Santorum’s Marriage Vow document. This article not only exposes the reality of ptiiolcians now, but illustrates that ptiiolcians from the reconstruction era and the current have not changed due to the fact that they hide their biases and prejudices under the banner of morality .


    Its such as you read my thoughts! You appear to understand a lot about this, like you wrote the guide in it or
    something. I feel that you just can do with some p.c.
    to pressure the message house a little bit,
    but other than that, that is great blog. An excellent read.
    I will definitely be back.

  5. fibromyalgia bracelet

    Do you mind if I qote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to
    your webpage? My website is in the exact same
    area of interest as yours and my users would really benefit
    from some of the information you provide here.
    Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks a

  6. grid condos

    Right here is the right website for anyone who hopes to understand this topic.
    You realize a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I
    personally would want to…HaHa). You certainly put a brand new spin on a subject that’s been discussed for years.
    Excellent stuff, just excellent!