Quotes from Thomas Gilovich

We seek opinions that are likely to support what we want to be true.

When examining evidence relevant to a given belief, people are inclined to see what they expect to see, and conclude what they expect to conclude. Information that is consistent with our pre-existing beliefs is often accepted at face value, whereas evidence that contradicts them is critically scrutinized and discounted. Our beliefs may thus be less responsive than they should to the implications of new information

People will always prefer black-and-white over shades of grey, and so there will always be the temptation to hold overly-simplified beliefs and to hold them with excessive confidence

What we believe is heavily influenced by what we think others believe

We humans seem to be extremely good at generating ideas, theories, and explanations that have the ring of plausibility. We may be relatively deficient, however, in evaluating and testing our ideas once they are formed

For desired conclusions, we ask ourselves, Can I believe this?, but for unpalatable conclusions we ask, Must I believe this?

When we do cross paths with people whose beliefs and attitudes conflict with our own, we are rarely challenged.

We hold many dubious beliefs, in other words, not because they satisfy some important psychological need, but because they seem to be the most sensible conclusions consistent with the available evidence. People hold such beliefs because they seem, in the words of Robert Merton, to be the "irresistible products of their own experience."7 They are the products, not of irrationality, but of flawed rationality.

People are often unaware of their own unawareness

Perhaps the most general and most important mental habit to instill is an appreciation of the folly of trying to draw conclusions from incomplete and unrepresentative evidence. An essential corollary of this appreciation should be an awareness of how often our everyday experience presents us with biased samples of information.

We must recognize that our view of the world is just that - a view that has been shaped by our own vantage point, history, and idiosyncratic knowledge.

If we want to understand the actions of other people, we have to understand how they interpreted their circumstances and the choices they faced--not the way we would interpret them or, rather, the way we think we would interpret them if we were in their shoes.

We learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.

Often when we get to know someone whose words and deeds were off-putting, once we get a better sense of how that person is understanding events, our dislike dissipates.

A person's conclusions can only be as solid as the information on which they are based. Thus, a person who is exposed to almost nothing but inaccurate information on a given subject almost inevitably develops an erroneous belief, a belief that can seem to be an irresistible product of the individual's (secondhand) experience.

We tend to resolve our perplexity arising out of the experience that other people see the world differently than we see it ourselves by declaring that these others, in consequence of some basic intellectual and moral defect, are unable to see things "as they really are" and to react to them "in a normal way." We thus imply, of course, that things are in fact as we see them, and that our ways are the normal ways. (Ichheiser, 1949, p. 39)

People rate themselves more favorably on amorphous traits like sensitivity and idealism (at the 73rd percentile, on average) than on relatively straightforward traits like thriftiness and being well-read (48th percentile).

Psychologists have known for some time that rewarding desirable responses is generally more effective in shaping behavior than punishing undesirable responses.19 However, the average person tends to find this fact surprising, and punishment has been the preferred reinforcer for the majority of parents in both modern society19 and in earlier periods.

Finally, it has been shown that the tendency for people to think of themselves as above average is reduced—even for ambiguous traits—when people are required to use specific definitions of each trait in their judgments.27

some evidence has accumulated that people who habitually fail to put the most favorable cast on their circumstances run the risk of depression.

When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."11 As individuals and as a society, we should be less accepting of superstition and sloppy thinking, and should strive to develop those "habits of mind" that promote a more accurate view of the world.

Our motivations thus influence our beliefs through the subtle ways we choose a comforting pattern from the fabric of evidence.

One of the simplest and yet most powerful ways we do so lies in how we frame the very question we ask of the evidence. When we prefer to believe something, we may approach the relevant evidence by asking ourselves, "what evidence is there to support this belief?

Regression effects, in other words, serve to "punish the administration of reward, and to reward the administration of punishment."21