In negotiations, where rational thinking is of great importance, it is important to spot cognitive errors.

Thought experiments allow us to see that our reasoning and the resulting decisions change with our motivations. The principles we follow and the reservations we have about other people’s behavior depend largely on our motives. We can be afraid of changes and want to maintain the status quo, we can see the benefits behind a given choice, and we can finally build our position in the environment.

Catching ourselves in tendentious thinking allows us to look at a given issue differently and prove to ourselves that our choices are usually conditioned in some way and go against the so-called objective truth.

The most commonly used thought experiments are:

• A test of double standards

• Here you need to answer the question: do you judge everyone else by the same standards as you judge yourself?
• Aren’t you more harsh when judging people you don’t like? Don’t you judge people you like more gently?
• If physical violence in the family is committed by a man with whom you have never been friends, will your assessment be unequivocal -> it is unacceptable and condemnable.
• If your good friend commits a condemnable act (e.g. beats his wife), will you seek explanations for his behavior?

• External observer test

As part of this test, you should put yourself in the role of an observer, a person not involved in a given event. This very often allows you to look at the matter from a different perspective and make optimal use of circumstances and resources.

• Conformity test

With this test, we ask ourselves what would happen if others (the majority) no longer held such a view or were no longer supporters of such an idea? Would we still stick to our current position without our supporters?

• The selective skeptic test

Here we have to look differently at the facts, evidence and theses with which we agree. We must imagine that these claims are now being made by our opponents. Would we then believe in them just as strongly, or would they lose credibility in the mouths of our opponents?

• A test of preference for the status quo

It turns out that we have an automatic preference for maintaining the status quo. What if we imagined that the current situation is not ours. Would we still strive to maintain or strengthen it?

The results of this test often show that our attachment to the status quo is not based on the belief in specific advantages of our current situation, but on a certain habit.

Source:https://poradniknegocjatora.pl/rozumowanie-tendencyjne/

Supported by Norway through Norway Grants 2014-2021, in the frame of the Programme “Social Dialogue – Decent Work”.