This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://whywemakemistakes.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://whywemakemistakes.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

The Dirty Truth

Question: Why do we keep making the same mistake over and over?

Answer: Because we fail to identify the root cause of the mistake to begin with -- a tendency researchers call, "misattribution."

Example: Washing your clothes. Say you get a stain on your shirt. You throw the shirt in the washing machine, add some detergent and 45 minutes later -- Voila! – the stain is still there.

You cuss. You holler. You kick the washing machine. Maybe you blame the detergent. But do you blame yourself? Nooooo. But maybe should.

According to a recent study in The Wall Street Journal, most Americans -- 53% -- don’t use the recommended amount of detergent per wash load. Instead they guess, usually filling the cap up to the top. This is a big mistake.

Why? Because detergent "overpouring" creates a high, foamy tide inside the machine, lifting soil and lint above the water level so it isn't rinsed away. That leaves residue on clothing that fades colors and attracts more dirt.

It’s also bad for your washing machine. Inside the machine, detergent buildup encourages odor and bacteria growth, and leads in time to wear and tear that will require professional attention.

So why do we do this? Because we don’t read the instructions. And why don’t we read the instructions? Because we think we know better. Most of us, the article reports, have done so many loads of laundry in our lives that we consider ourselves to be laundry experts. And experts don’t need no stinking instructions.

So there you have it: Ignorance and overconfidence all wrapped into one.

Class dismissed.

Foul? What foul?

For another example of how deeply-ingrained biases can affect our judgment -- even when we try to be objective -- check out this recent study on fouls during soccer games. (And thanks to my old soccer teammate Robbie Woodward for sending it along.)

Researchers at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, researched all recorded fouls in three major soccer competitions over seven years. They discovered an ambiguous foul is more likely to be attributed to the taller of two players.

Similar studies of over the years have found that the judgment of referees can be biased by other factors, too -- such as the color of a hockey team's jersey (teams with black jerseys accrue more fouls) or even the racial makeup of officiating crew in the National Basketball Association.

But we go on pretending the biases don't exist.

DWD (Driving While Distracted)

Readers of this blog have heard us carp for some time about the dangers of distracted driving. Now, the federal government is doing something to stop this nuttiness. Effective immediately, drivers of commercial trucks and buses will no longer be allowed to text while driving. Under federal guidelines that U.S. Transportation Department announced today, drivers of big rigs and buses may be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750.

Now, if the feds would apply a similar rule to the rest of the drivers on the road, we'd all be much safer.

Hack Me

Readers of Why We Make Mistakes already know why we pick computer passwords that are easily remembered -- and easily hacked (see pages 33-34). But if you have forgotten why or need more proof, check out the New York Times article on commonly-used passwords. Security researchers discovered a list of 32 million passwords that had been stolen from a website. And the number one password was...123456.(Number two was: 12345.)

Full-Body Scanners and Error Rates

Ah, full-body scanners. They're supposed to make us safer. But will they?

My hunch is: not much. My guess is based not on the scanners themselves (which are intrusive and come with real risks, like additional radiation deaths), but on the people who do the scanning.

Undercover tests conducted at major airports show that the "miss rates" for baggage inspectors using conventional technology is between 60% and 75%. That's a lot.

Has the Transportation Security Administration (or anyone else) assured us that full-body scans will result in lower error rates? If so, I've seen no such assurance.

Ultimately, all scans must be interpreted by the people behind the scanners. And that's where the problem comes in. As work by researchers like Jeremy Wolfe has demonstrated, human beings have real-world limits on their ability to detect objects, especially ones that they rarely see, such as bombs and guns. That's why the current miss rate is so high -- and why it is unlikely to improve with full-body scanners.

Upwardly Mobile

As readers of Why We Make Mistakes know, multi-tasking is usually a bad idea. It's an especially bad idea when you are behind the wheel of a car. Talking on a cell phone or texting while you are driving dramatically increases your chances of an accident. But we do it anyway because, among other reasons, we are overconfident about our abilities to multi-task.

For some interesting history about how we got to this point, see the page-one story by Matt Richtel in today's New York Times. As the article notes:

"Long before cellphones became common, industry pioneers were aware of the risks of multitasking behind the wheel. Their hunches have been validated by many scientific studies showing the dangers of talking while driving and, more recently, of texting.

"Despite the mounting evidence, the industry built itself into a $150 billion business in the United States largely by winning over a crucial customer: the driver."