Imagine a world in which nobody is lying. A world in which no one has ever lied and will never lie. Which problems would emerge? How would life change? There would indeed be fundamental changes. Let us consider an example often used in criminal law classes: A husband whose wife falls in love with another…
A few months ago, I published a #30in30 regarding the hindsight bias. As I promised, during this essay, I will give you more information on the impacts on the legal profession as well as on debiasing this classic behavioral bias. This article will be a thorough introduction. Hence, there is no need to read the…
(Reading time: 3 min read)
The 30 in 30 Briefing Series focuses on a new cognitive bias, fallacy or heuristic in every single publication. Through this Briefing we want to provide you with a rough overview of the cognitive phenomena most likely to occur in the legal profession. Today’s content: Frequency illusion, or also known as Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
It has to be understood in conjunction with the Confirmation Bias: A combination of both has ample potential to turn out harmful for legal research.
(Reading time: 2 min read)
The next time you hear the words “Had you asked me, I could have told you that would happen” you will remember: There is no rational reason to be annoyed. Our brains cannot help but think this way: Tricked by the Hindsight Bias, people tend to rate the likelihood of events higher when already knowing the actual outcome.
What is annoying in our everyday lives can turn hazardous when giving legal advice to your clients. Moreover, both judges and juries are likely to be misguided into applying a much higher standard of proof – especially in cases involving unresolved questions of negligence.