4 ms·
There's a specific name for that cognitive bias but I can't remember what it is. I recall it being mentioned in the context of a CTO articulating why they belie
by kungfufrog 6y ago
There's a specific name for that cognitive bias but I can't remember what it is. I recall it being mentioned in the context of a CTO articulating why they believed their business' product was successful. Their answer was, 'we used Ruby on Rails', and the bias was demonstrated in that there's no clear way to distinguish if that fact was an actual true determinant in the product's success, but because looking back it stood out to him/her as something tangible they could reason about, then it must be true by de facto.
edit: Perhaps hindsight bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
- Sharlin 6y agoIt's a form of survivorship bias, but also a case of the common logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Possibly also relevant: the just world fallacy ("We made (subjectively) good decisions so we deserved to win").
- SilasHaslam 6y agoThe Drunkard's Walk [0], by Leonard Mlodinow, covers this and related topics brilliantly. Relevant excerpt: "..economists like W. Brian Arthur argue that a concurrence of minor factors can even lead companies with no particular edge to come to dominate their competitors. "In the real world," he wrote, "if several similar-sized firms entered a market together, small fortuitous events - unexpected orders, chance meetings with buyers, managerial whims - would help determine which ones received early sales and, over time, which came to dominate. Economic activity is... [determined] by individual transactions that are too small to foresee, and these small 'random' events could [ac]cumulate and become magnified by positive feedbacks over time." [0] https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/907183439 https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/907183439