Gil 5&6 Seeing what we want to see --We tend to believe things about ourselves that are flattering

(we are brighter, healthier, & more esteemed than is actually the case) Lake Wobegone effect --Why? -- ognitive or !otivational? ---Gil" #ays mainly motivational" $% &ow does this wor'? (o we )ust believe these things with no evidence? *% +o, Two tendencies: looking at selected KINDS of evidence and listening to selected AUT !"ITI#S$ $% What 'ind of evidence to we loo' for when testing our flattering self-image? *% We see' confirmatory evidence and ignore contradictory evidence" e"g" -.troversion & /ntroversion in students" When told e.t" was related to success, they were very good at remembering e0isodes that showed they were e.troverted" 1i'ewise with introversion" $% &ow do we select authorities? *% We choose those we already have reason to thin' will confirm our beliefs" --2artly this is because our associates are more li'ely to agree with us" --3ut also 0artly because we see' confirmatory evidence" !%tional sto%%ing (choosing to sto0 your search for evidence once your beliefs are confirmed) 4eality & evidence 5+#64*/+ but do not (-6-4!/+- our beliefs, 0articularly when it comes to beliefs about ourselves" *+ / 3-1/-7- things that flatter me !8#6 / 3-1/-7- things that don9t (ifference is fairly clear% We are satisfied with mere 25##/3/1/6: when it comes to things we want to believe"

onsider any 0artisan 0olitical debate" *s a liberal, / am satisfied that evidence suggests ;lorida elections were rigged< *s a conservative, /9d demand absolute 0roof" *nd contrarywise" Self&based definitions What counts as =/ntelligence> =integrity> =hardwor'ing?> We 0robably use our own strengths?e.0eriences to define these, ma'ing it easier to believe we have these traits" '#LI#(S A"# )!SS#SSI!NS &o0efully, 1&@ gave you some ways to critiAue this meta0hor and Gilovich9s 0resentation" -G +otice% --Gil actually 0resented it as a simile --0"B6 % Gil seems to have it bac'wards, doesn9t he, regarding language C he says lang" Dca0tures9 this similarity" 1&@ would say it 4-*6-# the similarity, right? --=-ndowment effect> % 0"E6 C seems to fit nicely &ighlights% --beliefs belong to us --we need to 0rotect them --show off beliefs to those who we thin' will a00reciate them --might shield them from 0ublic view --3eliefs need to fit together (coherence) --beliefs have a cost ost is in rationality F some beliefs Dcost9 us a lot in rationality, if they are irrational, 0oorly su00orted, etc" ost can get too high" What does this meta0hor hide?

'elieving what we a*e told Little Albe*t Good story, but mostly not true, Telling a good sto*+ --+eeds of listener & s0ea'er ---#0ea'ers9 message must be worth listening too (for listener) ---and worth telling (for s0ea'er) ---story must be understandable --story must not have too many unnecessary details ( he'ov9s rifle) &Sha*%ening , Leveling #har0ening% gist of story em0hasiGed?e.0anded?increased in volume 1eveling% needless details de-em0hasiGed or omitted What is =needless>? --ambiguous information --inconsistencies --difficult details (2enn (utch) 6hus, 0er game of =tele0hone> C details lost, message distorted *lso, thin' of someone you 'now only secondhand, through other9s accounts" --often very different" --secondhand descri0tions become Auite e.treme *% =#he9s told me all about you> 3% =8h-oh,> &Disto*tions in se*vice of in fo*-ativeness and ente*tain-ent 0oint of communicating is to inform or entertain or both" #o, a good story does one or both H) /ncreasing immediacy --more ent & inf when it is first or secondhand than when it is removed by several degrees --but this is distorting C listener can9t tell how reliable the info is, because don9t 'now how remote it is" --this is why =hearsay> is not allowed in court, even though we acce0t it all the time in everyday life"

I) 5mitting Aualifications and disclaimers --seems more informative, but is less accurate --re0orts of new discoveries and inventions often bury Aualifications dee0 in the article J) #tretching the truth to ma'e a 0oint --es0" when there is a moral message ("*"4"-" consistently s0reads misleading information about certain drugs C to discourage their use" K) 1iterary license --more entertaining if told in e.aggerated way --o"'" when e.0licitly to entertain --+56 o"'" when it is not clear that e.aggeration is ha00ening Disto*tion in se*vice of self&inte*est H) want to be seen as more interesting, entertaining, 'nowledgeable ( liff lavin) I) ideological a.es to grind (e.aggerate threats of drugs or #6(s, or su00ort your theory, etc") Disto*tion d.e to %la.sibilit+ #ome stories circulate because they )ust seem li'e they =ought> to be true --3obby !c;errin9s suicide after success of =(on9t worry be ha00y> *lso more seriously, this ha00ens when bogus diets and health fads circulate C often have veneer of 0lausibility" So how do we defend o.*selves against disto*tion/ 2ersonal e.0erience & bac'ground information are very hel0ful 3ut sometimes they conflict" #val.ating second&hand info*-ation: H) onsider the source --4ely on more re0utable sources--3ut don9t buy everything they say either" --Which e.0erts are consulted? &ow accurately were they Auoted? I) 6rust facts, distrust 0ro)ections ---asy to 'now what ha00ened in 0ast --&ard to 0ro)ect this onto the future C what other factors could be overloo'ed in 0ro)ection?

J) Watch for shar0ening & leveling" --/ncluding weasel words (=as many as>) --is margin of error noted for 0olls? K) 3e wary of testimonials (anecdotal evidence) --one 0erson9s e.0erience tells us what is li'e to have an e.0erience, +56 how common it is,