It looks like some people have the idea that biases are inherently bad, and they see this collection of bias patterns as a list of flaws that would not stain th

It looks like some people have the idea that biases are inherently bad, and they see this collection of bias patterns as a list of flaws that would not stain the judgment of the ideal human being. This is not true. Unless your ideal human being is omniscient. In many cases it makes sense to set up a framework where we try to minimize these things, such as a scientific observation or experiment. We minimize bias as best we can in such cases because we're trying to learn something that exists outside of the realm of human experience, or that at least is universal to all humans. However, the motivations behind all such experiments are hopelessly mired in dubious assumptions, heuristics, and guesses (like hypotheses). I say 'hopelessly' but I would use a more positive term, since bias is ultimately what drives human action. This is why it is important to recognize when and what biases are appropriate in what contexts. Here's a quote from this very article: "Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behaviour. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions or enable faster decisions. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, or from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive under different circumstances." Being free from bias doesn't make you smart, it makes you paralyzed. What makes you smart is your ability to use these adaptive thought processes in a way that enables you to accomplish your ends. Seen in this way, it is impossible to blame world hunger, etc. on people's cognitive biases. Maybe you can blame it on capable selfish people combined with inappropriate biases among the general population?