Review of '<b>Common Biases in Systems Thinking</b>'

1. In the interest of future research along these lines, it would be amazing if AI could be trained to analyze language samples according to DSRP patterns as you did in this study.   As a validated tool, it would greatly increase the amount of data that could be processed.  

2. As this research progresses, here are some patterns that might be worth assessing: 

a. What is the effect on cognitive bias when there is more than one person involved?  It follows logically that, by definition, adding individuals to thinking projects increases the number of perspectives and so one would hypothesize that collaboration is the most natural way to overcome many biases in thinking.  However, I suppose there is the strong likelihood/certainty  that, without an explicit value on Ppv in each individual mind, the Ppv provided by additional people will be disregarded and have a lessened net effect on bias reduction.  This puts the initial locus of control back on increasing individual use of Ppv and may, only then, allow for the benefits of collaboration to be realized.  At that point, and only at that point, will the benefits of collaboration allow for individuals to go above and beyond their own capacity for Ppv simply due to the limitations of a single human mind even if at full capacity with Ppv skills.  Better stated, what is the upper limit of ability to create mental models that align with reality when Ppv is maximized both individually and by the number of participants in collaboration?  Is there an ideal number of collaborators and what is the percent breakdown of efficacy above and below that ideal number of Ppv-able people?  My thoughts on this are informed by my limited knowledge of one aspect of distributed cognition.  (This kind of study seems to be something that would need to come on-line quite a ways down the road; I do not think it is a "next steps" kind of question.) 

b. Do different demographics display different forms of cognitive bias?  For example: is there a notable difference in the increase, quantitatively or qualitatively, of bias in the prison population?  Political extremists?  The most effective leaders in any realm? etc. I particularly think that comedians might reverse the bias pattern or significantly alter it.  Maybe what makes them funny is often that they use the patterns we do not.  See this funny clip from Shrek.  Pinnochio

c. It seems counterintuitive given the theoretical ideal of even distribution of DSRP patterns in nature, but is there any benefit to certain bias patterns in certain situations?  This may not be worth pursuing depending on what the research continues to show, but it also may prove a good "foil" or "exception search study" (I made those terms up as I'm not familiar with the terminology one would use to describe a kind of study that would seek to prove the Di by searching for the Do and not finding it.). 

Even so, there may actually be a benefit to bias of certain types and to certain degrees.  I will explain my reasoning for this in a following point below. 

d. Are different languages more or less able to express nuance in thought?  Might this be a factor that could skew the results/ability to measure thought through language?  Our family used to host international students for a weekend so they could experience what life was like in an American home.  One time, we had a few African gentlemen stay with us, and we were ordering pizza for dinner.  Now, the sample size is only 4, but when we asked them what kind of pizza they wanted and listed some options, they were surprised by all the words we had to describe pizza.  They said, in their language, pizza is only described as "bread with toppings" and there is no way to distinguish between the many iterations of what could comprise the bread or the toppings ex. thin crust, meat lovers, etc. It's a bit difficult to believe, but that is what they said, and it has always stuck with me.  I have also heard, but have no idea if it is true (and no disrespect to the Swedish language or any other language for that matter), that the English language is very nuanced compared to many others, possibly due to the diversity of its origins - Anglo Saxon, Latin, and Greek, largely, with borrowed words from many other languages.  

Finally, and possibly most interestingly, here are my thoughts on why bias might actually be useful and necessary even though the theoretical representation of DSRP in nature is even, and that #Love Reality is certainly a legitimate and crucial concept.  This idea ties in with my points a. and c. above.  Disclaimer: this option/idea is based on my limited understanding of the Shannon Theory of Information, the truth is - I do not know what I do not know.  (See?  Already putting your research to good use! :) 

I will try to be succinct. :). An increase in Ppv's necessarily causes a correlated increase in Dio's.  The more Pp's one takes on a Di, the less certain the distinction becomes statistically.  The Shannon Theory of Information (according to an article on the Comparative Media Studies website from MIT: The concepts Shannon developed in his paper are at the heart of today's digital information technology.  Not relevant other than to say Shannon's ideas are still relevant, as far as I know.) says the definition of information is an decrease in uncertainty.  It seems to follow that the more Pp's you take the more you increase the level of uncertainty regarding the Di, thereby introducing entropy.  Since we need information to make meaning, M = i x t, it seems the more Pp's one is able to consider the more one might reduce bias, but bias, especially away from P’s, may be inextricably linked to the very creation of information in the first place (or at least might explain the natural phenomenon of the reduced use of Ppv in the way people tend to think, evolutionarily.)  Nature, on the other hand, does not need to make meaning, and so it makes sense that bias is not needed and the distributions of DSRP patterns can be even.  Consciousness, it seems, may demand bias (away from Ppv in particular). 

Maybe there is a certain principle at play such as the law of diminishing returns, and we are so far from realizing that diminishment that an effort to increase Ppv's would serve us very well without fear of the complete dissolution of information and meaning as we know it.  There is also the possibility that when we incorporate various perspectives, our mind forms a gestalt understanding which is more comprehensive in its scope than one with reduced perspectives taken.