genetic-fallacy

Genetic Fallacy

Business / By /

The Genetic Fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer dismisses or accepts a claim or argument based solely on its origin, source, or history, rather than evaluating the actual merits or evidence supporting the claim. This fallacy wrongly assumes that the source of a claim determines its validity or truthfulness. It’s called “genetic” because it concerns the origins or birthplace of an idea or argument.

Key Elements of the Genetic Fallacy

  1. Focus on Origins:
    • The genetic fallacy focuses on the origins or history of an argument, belief, or idea rather than its current merits, evidence, or logic.
    • It dismisses or validates claims based on their source, association, or context of origin, rather than their inherent validity or truthfulness.
  2. Discrediting by Association:
    • The genetic fallacy involves discrediting an argument or belief by associating it with a particular person, group, ideology, or historical context.
    • It assumes that the origins or associations of the argument automatically determine its validity or credibility, without evaluating its content or reasoning.
  3. Failure to Address Substance:
    • The genetic fallacy overlooks the substantive content or logic of the argument, focusing instead on its perceived origins or associations.
    • It fails to engage with the evidence, reasoning, or logical structure of the argument, leading to superficial or biased evaluations.
  4. Appeal to Authority or Tradition:
    • The genetic fallacy may involve appealing to authority or tradition to validate or invalidate an argument, based on the authority or tradition’s perceived credibility or legitimacy.
    • It relies on the authority or tradition’s reputation or status to justify or reject the argument, rather than evaluating its merits independently.

Implications of the Genetic Fallacy

  • Misleading Evaluations: Judging arguments based on their origins can lead to misleading evaluations that overlook or distort their substantive content or logic.
  • Undermined Credibility: Using the genetic fallacy to discredit arguments based on their source or association can undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of reasoning and discourse.
  • Closed-mindedness: Overreliance on the genetic fallacy may foster closed-mindedness and intellectual rigidity, inhibiting open-minded inquiry and critical thinking.
  • Stifled Dialogue: Dismissing arguments based on their origins can stifle constructive dialogue and debate by discouraging engagement with diverse perspectives and ideas.

Use Cases and Examples

  1. Ad Hominem Attacks:
    • Dismissing an argument by attacking the character, motives, or affiliations of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
    • For example, rejecting a proposal for healthcare reform because it was proposed by a political opponent, without considering the merits of the proposal.
  2. Appeal to Tradition:
    • Justifying a belief or practice based on its historical precedent or tradition, without evaluating its compatibility with contemporary values or evidence.
    • For instance, arguing against marriage equality by appealing to the historical definition of marriage, without considering evolving societal norms or equality principles.

Strategies for Avoiding the Genetic Fallacy

  1. Focus on Substance:
    • Evaluate arguments based on their substantive content, evidence, reasoning, and logical structure, rather than their origins or associations.
    • Critically assess the validity and soundness of arguments independently of their source or context of origin.
  2. Consider Multiple Perspectives:
    • Engage with diverse perspectives and ideas, even if they originate from sources or traditions with which you disagree or are unfamiliar.
    • Avoid dismissing arguments based solely on their origins or associations, and instead evaluate them based on their merits and evidence.
  3. Question Assumptions:
    • Question assumptions about the credibility or legitimacy of arguments based on their origins, associations, or authority figures.
    • Challenge yourself to critically evaluate arguments and claims based on their inherent validity and logical coherence, rather than their source or tradition.
  4. Promote Open-minded Inquiry:
    • Foster an environment of open-minded inquiry and critical thinking by encouraging dialogue, debate, and the exchange of diverse perspectives and ideas.
    • Encourage intellectual humility and a willingness to reconsider beliefs or assumptions in light of new evidence or reasoned arguments.

Benefits of Avoiding the Genetic Fallacy

  • Intellectual Integrity: Avoiding the genetic fallacy promotes intellectual integrity by focusing on the substance and logic of arguments, rather than their origins or associations.
  • Open-minded Inquiry: Engaging with diverse perspectives and ideas without prejudice or bias fosters open-minded inquiry and critical thinking.
  • Constructive Dialogue: Evaluating arguments based on their merits and evidence rather than their origins encourages constructive dialogue and debate.
  • Enhanced Discourse: By avoiding the genetic fallacy, individuals contribute to more informed, reasoned, and respectful discourse in society.

Challenges of Avoiding the Genetic Fallacy

  • Cognitive Biases: Overcoming cognitive biases and preconceptions that influence perceptions of arguments based on their origins or associations can be challenging.
  • Social Pressures: Social pressures or group dynamics may reinforce the tendency to dismiss arguments based on their source or affiliation, making it difficult to avoid the genetic fallacy.
  • Complexity of Evaluation: Evaluating arguments based on their merits and evidence requires careful analysis and critical thinking, which may be challenging in complex or contentious issues.
  • Resistance to Change: Individuals or groups may resist reassessing beliefs or assumptions that are challenged by reasoned arguments, perpetuating the genetic fallacy.

Conclusion

The genetic fallacy presents challenges for reasoning and discourse by judging arguments based on their origins or associations rather than their merits or evidence. By recognizing the key elements, implications, and strategies associated with the genetic fallacy, individuals can avoid this fallacy and promote accuracy, fairness, and integrity in critical thinking and argumentation. Understanding the risks and benefits of the genetic fallacy is essential for fostering open-minded inquiry, constructive dialogue, and reasoned discourse in diverse contexts and domains.

  • Intellectual Integrity: Avoiding the genetic fallacy promotes intellectual integrity by focusing on the substance and logic of arguments, rather than their origins or associations.
  • Open-minded Inquiry: Engaging with diverse perspectives and ideas without prejudice or bias fosters open-minded inquiry and critical thinking.
  • Constructive Dialogue: Evaluating arguments based on their merits and evidence rather than their origins encourages constructive dialogue and debate.
  • Enhanced Discourse: By avoiding the genetic fallacy, individuals contribute to more informed, reasoned, and respectful discourse in society.
AspectExplanation
Key Characteristics– The Genetic Fallacy typically exhibits the following traits: – Source-Based Judgment: It focuses on the source of a claim, argument, or information rather than the content or evidence. – Rejection or Acceptance: The fallacy can lead to either rejecting a claim because of its source (e.g., a biased source) or accepting it uncritically because of its source (e.g., a credible source). – Ignores Evidence: It often ignores the actual evidence, logic, or reasons presented in support of the claim. – Ad Hominem Variation: It shares similarities with ad hominem fallacies where the focus is on attacking or praising the person or entity making the argument rather than the argument itself. – Erroneous Judgment: The fallacy can result in erroneous judgments about the validity or truthfulness of a claim.
Examples– Examples of the Genetic Fallacy include: – Rejecting a scientific theory because it was first proposed by a scientist with a controversial background. This dismisses the theory without evaluating the evidence supporting it. – Accepting a news report as true solely because it was published by a reputable news outlet. This assumes truth without assessing the specific evidence or verification of the report. – Dismissing an idea or argument because it originated from a particular cultural or religious tradition. This overlooks the content and logical validity of the idea.
Purpose and Effects– The primary purpose of the Genetic Fallacy is to manipulate judgment by diverting attention from the merits of an argument or claim to its source. The effects can include: – Unwarranted Rejection: It can lead to the unwarranted rejection of valid ideas or arguments simply because of their source. – Blind Acceptance: Conversely, it can result in blind acceptance of false or unsubstantiated claims based on the credibility of the source. – Misjudgment: The fallacy can lead to misjudgments, where the validity or truth of a claim is determined erroneously. – Biased Evaluation: It promotes biased evaluation of information, preventing a fair and rational assessment of ideas. – Obfuscation of Issues: The Genetic Fallacy can divert attention from the actual issues at hand by focusing on the origins of arguments or claims.
Counteraction– To counteract the Genetic Fallacy: – Shift Focus: Recognize when the argument is primarily concerned with the source rather than the content or evidence. – Evaluate the Argument: Assess the argument or claim based on its own merits, evidence, and logical validity, regardless of its source. – Request Evidence: If someone dismisses or accepts a claim based on its source, ask for specific evidence or reasoning that supports or refutes the claim. – Avoid Hasty Judgments: Avoid making hasty judgments about ideas or arguments based solely on their origin. – Promote Critical Thinking: Encourage critical thinking that emphasizes evidence, logic, and reasoning over the source or origin of information.
Real-World Significance– The Genetic Fallacy is prevalent in various contexts, including politics, media, and everyday discourse. It can distort judgment, hinder rational evaluation, and contribute to the spread of misinformation. Being able to recognize and address this fallacy is essential for promoting critical thinking and informed decision-making in personal and societal discussions.

ContextDescriptionImplicationsHow to Recognize and Address ItExamples
Scientific ResearchAn individual dismisses a scientific study’s findings solely because the researcher received funding from a company with a vested interest in the study’s outcome, without considering the study’s methodology or results.– Undermines trust in scientific research without evaluating the study’s quality. – May disregard valuable research based on its funding source.Recognize when the critique focuses on the source of funding rather than the study’s methodology or findings.Dismissing the findings of a climate change study because it was funded by an environmental advocacy group without assessing the study itself.
News ReportingSomeone disregards a news article’s information and conclusions because the news outlet is known for having a particular political bias, without evaluating the accuracy of the specific article.– Undermines the credibility of news sources without assessing individual articles. – May lead to the rejection of factual reporting based on perceived bias.Identify when criticism centers on the outlet’s reputation or bias rather than evaluating the specific article’s content.Rejecting a news story’s claims as “fake news” solely because the news outlet is perceived as politically biased without examining the evidence presented.
Historical AccountsAn individual dismisses a historical account of an event because it was written by someone with a different cultural background, without assessing the historical evidence or context.– Oversimplifies historical narratives and may lead to the rejection of valuable perspectives. – May perpetuate historical biases and ethnocentrism.Notice when the critique focuses on the author’s background rather than evaluating the historical account’s evidence and context.Rejecting an account of a historical event because the author is from a different cultural background without considering the historical evidence presented.
Product ReviewsA consumer disregards a product’s positive reviews because they were posted on the manufacturer’s website, assuming they must be biased, without assessing the product’s performance or features.– May miss out on valuable information and product insights. – Disregards potentially legitimate reviews based on their source.Identify when criticism is based on the source of the reviews rather than evaluating the reviews themselves.Dismissing positive product reviews as biased because they were posted on the manufacturer’s website without examining the reviewers’ feedback and experiences.
Political SpeechDuring a political speech, a person dismisses an opponent’s argument as invalid because it originated from a political rival, without addressing the content of the argument itself.– Undermines productive political discourse and critical evaluation of ideas. – May result in the avoidance of valid arguments based on their source.Recognize when the dismissal is based on the speaker’s political affiliation rather than addressing the argument’s content.Dismissing an opponent’s policy proposal solely because it was suggested by a rival political party without evaluating its merits and potential benefits.
Academic DiscourseIn an academic discussion, someone ignores a peer’s research paper because it was published in a relatively unknown journal, without assessing the paper’s research methods or conclusions.– May miss out on valuable research insights and perspectives. – Disregards potentially rigorous research based on the journal’s reputation.Notice when the critique is focused on the journal’s reputation rather than evaluating the paper’s research methods and findings.Rejecting a peer’s research paper because it was published in a lesser-known journal without assessing the quality and validity of the research presented.
Personal AdviceAn individual rejects advice from a friend solely because the friend has made personal mistakes in the past, without considering whether the advice is sound or relevant to the current situation.– May miss out on valuable advice and guidance. – Disregards potentially helpful insights based on a person’s past actions.Recognize when advice is dismissed based on the advisor’s past without assessing the relevance and merit of the advice itself.Ignoring a friend’s advice on financial planning because the friend has faced financial difficulties in the past, without evaluating the advice itself.
Legal ArgumentsDuring a legal debate, someone dismisses an opposing lawyer’s argument because they graduated from a less prestigious law school, without addressing the legal argument’s merits or legal precedents.– Undermines the principle of equal representation in the legal system. – May disregard valid legal arguments based on the lawyer’s educational background.Notice when the dismissal is based on the lawyer’s educational background rather than evaluating the legal argument’s merits and precedent.Dismissing a legal argument presented by an attorney because they graduated from a less prestigious law school without considering the legal precedent and reasoning.
Cultural PracticesAn individual criticizes a cultural tradition or practice as invalid or backward because it comes from a society with different norms and values, without evaluating the practice’s significance or context.– May perpetuate cultural stereotypes and ethnocentrism. – Disregards the cultural significance and context of practices.Identify when criticism focuses on the cultural origin rather than evaluating the practice’s significance and context.Criticizing a cultural ritual as primitive solely because it is performed by a society with different norms without considering its cultural importance and context.
Ethical PrinciplesSomeone rejects a moral argument because it was presented by a person with a different religious belief, assuming it cannot be applicable or valid, without evaluating the moral argument itself.– May hinder ethical discussions and consideration of diverse perspectives. – Disregards valid moral arguments based on their source’s beliefs.Recognize when the rejection is based on the person’s religious belief rather than evaluating the moral argument’s applicability and validity.Dismissing a moral argument presented by an individual of a different religious faith without considering the moral principles and reasoning presented.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

convergent-vs-divergent-thinking
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.

Critical Thinking

critical-thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.

Biases

biases
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.

Second-Order Thinking

second-order-thinking
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.

Lateral Thinking

lateral-thinking
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.

Bounded Rationality

bounded-rationality
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

dunning-kruger-effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.

Occam’s Razor

occams-razor
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.

Lindy Effect

lindy-effect
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.

Antifragility

antifragility
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).

Ergodicity

ergodicity
Ergodicity is one of the most important concepts in statistics. Ergodicity is a mathematical concept suggesting that a point of a moving system will eventually visit all parts of the space the system moves in. On the opposite side, non-ergodic means that a system doesn’t visit all the possible parts, as there are absorbing barriers

Systems Thinking

systems-thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.

Vertical Thinking

vertical-thinking
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.

Metaphorical Thinking

metaphorical-thinking
Metaphorical thinking describes a mental process in which comparisons are made between qualities of objects usually considered to be separate classifications.  Metaphorical thinking is a mental process connecting two different universes of meaning and is the result of the mind looking for similarities.

Maslow’s Hammer

einstellung-effect
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).

Peter Principle

peter-principle
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.

Straw Man Fallacy

straw-man-fallacy
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.

Google Effect

google-effect
The Google effect is a tendency for individuals to forget information that is readily available through search engines. During the Google effect – sometimes called digital amnesia – individuals have an excessive reliance on digital information as a form of memory recall.

Streisand Effect

streisand-effect
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.

Compromise Effect

compromise-effect
Single-attribute choices – such as choosing the apartment with the lowest rent – are relatively simple. However, most of the decisions consumers make are based on multiple attributes which complicate the decision-making process. The compromise effect states that a consumer is more likely to choose the middle option of a set of products over more extreme options.

Butterfly Effect

butterfly-effect
In business, the butterfly effect describes the phenomenon where the simplest actions yield the largest rewards. The butterfly effect was coined by meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1960 and as a result, it is most often associated with weather in pop culture. Lorenz noted that the small action of a butterfly fluttering its wings had the potential to cause progressively larger actions resulting in a typhoon.

IKEA Effect

ikea-effect
The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias that describes consumers’ tendency to value something more if they have made it themselves. That is why brands often use the IKEA effect to have customizations for final products, as they help the consumer relate to it more and therefore appending to it more value.

Ringelmann Effect 

Ringelmann Effect
The Ringelmann effect describes the tendency for individuals within a group to become less productive as the group size increases.

The Overview Effect

overview-effect
The overview effect is a cognitive shift reported by some astronauts when they look back at the Earth from space. The shift occurs because of the impressive visual spectacle of the Earth and tends to be characterized by a state of awe and increased self-transcendence.

House Money Effect

house-money-effect
The house money effect was first described by researchers Richard Thaler and Eric Johnson in a 1990 study entitled Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice. The house money effect is a cognitive bias where investors take higher risks on reinvested capital than they would on an initial investment.

Heuristic

heuristic
As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.

Recognition Heuristic

recognition-heuristic
The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.

Representativeness Heuristic

representativeness-heuristic
The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.

Take-The-Best Heuristic

take-the-best-heuristic
The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.

Bundling Bias

bundling-bias
The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.

Barnum Effect

barnum-effect
The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.

Anchoring Effect

anchoring-effect
The anchoring effect describes the human tendency to rely on an initial piece of information (the “anchor”) to make subsequent judgments or decisions. Price anchoring, then, is the process of establishing a price point that customers can reference when making a buying decision.

Decoy Effect

decoy-effect
The decoy effect is a psychological phenomenon where inferior – or decoy – options influence consumer preferences. Businesses use the decoy effect to nudge potential customers toward the desired target product. The decoy effect is staged by placing a competitor product and a decoy product, which is primarily used to nudge the customer toward the target product.

Commitment Bias

commitment-bias
Commitment bias describes the tendency of an individual to remain committed to past behaviors – even if they result in undesirable outcomes. The bias is particularly pronounced when such behaviors are performed publicly. Commitment bias is also known as escalation of commitment.

First-Principles Thinking

first-principles-thinking
First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.

Ladder Of Inference

ladder-of-inference
The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.

Goodhart’s Law

goodharts-law
Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Six Thinking Hats Model

six-thinking-hats-model
The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.

Mandela Effect

mandela-effect
The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.

Crowding-Out Effect

crowding-out-effect
The crowding-out effect occurs when public sector spending reduces spending in the private sector.

Bandwagon Effect

bandwagon-effect
The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.

Moore’s Law

moores-law
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.

Disruptive Innovation

disruptive-innovation
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.

Value Migration

value-migration
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.

Bye-Now Effect

bye-now-effect
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.

Groupthink

groupthink
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.

Stereotyping

stereotyping
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.

Murphy’s Law

murphys-law
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”

Law of Unintended Consequences

law-of-unintended-consequences
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.

Fundamental Attribution Error

fundamental-attribution-error
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.

Outcome Bias

outcome-bias
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.

Hindsight Bias

hindsight-bias
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.

Read Next: Biases, Bounded Rationality, Mandela Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Lindy Effect, Crowding Out Effect, Bandwagon Effect.

Main Guides:

More Resources

Scroll to Top

Discover more from FourWeekMBA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

FourWeekMBA