Omission and Abstract Blindness

2. OMISSION AND ABSTRACT BLINDNESS

We react to stimuli that we personally encounter or that grab our attention. We react more strongly to the concrete and specific than to the abstract. We give personal experiences more weight than vicarious ones. We see only what we have names for. We tend to focus only on the present information rather than what information may potentially be missing. For example, when planning, we often place too much importance on the specific future event and not enough on other possible events and their consequences that can cause the event to be delayed or not happen.

A lottery headline tells us about the winner, not the 14 million people who did not win.

We base what is likely to happen on what we see. Not on what we don't see. We don't see what could have happened. We see the winners because they are vocal or visible and get media coverage. We don't see the quiet losers. We see the successful forecasters. We don't see those who didn't predict well. We see the kind of risk that makes headlines. We don't see the statistical risk. We see the benefits of government expenditure. We don't see the costs and benefits of resources’ alternative uses. We don't see the alternative uses of taxpayers’ money for consumption, saving or investing.

We see the available information. We don't see what isn't reported. Missing information doesn't draw our attention. We tend not to think about other possibilities, alternatives, explanations, outcomes or attributes. When we try to find out if one thing causes another, we only see what happened, not what didn't happen. We see when a procedure works, not when it doesn't work. When we use checklists to find out possible reasons for why something doesn't work, we often don't see that what is not on the list in the first place may be the reason for the problem.

John asks his son Adam which university he would like to attend. Mary instead asks Adam which university he doesn't like. Adam both selects and rejects university B. Why would Adam both like and not like university B? Because when we choose, we compare positive attributes but when we reject, we compare negative attributes. University B had more striking positive and negative qualities than the other schools, so it stood out under both questions.

Studies show that when deciding which parent should receive sole custody of a child, juries focus on information that makes one parent seem better than the other. But when deciding which parent should be denied custody, juries focus on information that makes one parent seem inferior to the other. This means that if one parent has average economic, social and emotional features and the other parent more striking positive and negative features, we will both choose and reject the same parent. This means that we often both choose and reject options that are of a more striking or complex nature over average ones.

John's mother was concentrating on talking on her cell phone so she didn't see the other car coming.

We don't see much of what passes our eyes when we are focused on something else. We only see what we focus our attention on. Sometimes we don't see what is right in front of us. One study showed that a few experienced pilots trying to land a plane in a flight simulator were so concentrated on the flight information display, they didn't see that a second plane was blocking their runway. Until it was too late to avoid a collision.

Keep in mind

• Look for alternative explanations. • Consider missing information. Know what you want to achieve. • Compare both positive and negative characteristics.