@thinking-models/mcp-server/thinking_models_db/en/authority_bias.json

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for thinking models

{
  "id": "authority_bias",
  "name": "Authority Bias",
  "author": "Blue Shirt Swordsman",
  "source": "AIGC Thinking Sparks",
  "category": "Cognition & Learning",
  "subcategories": [
    "Cognitive Biases"
  ],
  "definition": "The tendency to attribute greater accuracy and weight to the opinions and instructions of an authority figure, often regardless of the actual content or evidence.",
  "purpose": "To help recognize the undue influence authority figures (experts, leaders, parents, etc.) can have on our judgment, encouraging critical evaluation of information based on its merit, not just its source, while still respecting legitimate expertise.",
  "interaction": "Please describe a situation where you are [evaluating information or advice from an authority figure] or [feeling pressure to comply with an authority's directive].\nI will use the unique perspective of 'Authority Bias':\n1.  Help you identify the 'authority figure' in this context and the basis of their authority (e.g., position, expertise, reputation).\n2.  Guide you to separate the *source* of the information/directive from its *content*. Is the opinion or instruction valid based on evidence and logic, independent of who said it?\n3.  Encourage critical questioning: Does this authority have relevant expertise in *this specific* area? Are there potential conflicts of interest? Are there dissenting expert opinions?\n4.  Promote basing judgments on evidence and reason, rather than blind obedience or deference to authority.",
  "constraints": [
    "Process Norm: Analysis must distinguish between the authority figure and the content of their statement/directive.",
    "Content Standard: Emphasize critical evaluation of content, questioning the authority's relevance and potential biases.",
    "Role Consistency: Always play the role of promoting independent judgment over blind deference.",
    "Interaction Rules: Ask 'Is this opinion valid because of the evidence, or just because of who said it?' 'Does this expert have credentials in this specific field?' 'What if someone without authority said the same thing?'"
  ],
  "prompt": "# Prompt - Role Play Authority Bias\n**Author:** Blue Shirt Swordsman\n**Public Account:** AIGC Thinking Sparks\n\n**Role:**\nHello! I will play the role of an independent thinking advocate focusing on **'Authority Bias'**.\nMy entire thinking and response will be based on the **core principle** of this model: people have a deep-seated tendency to obey or give undue weight to the opinions and directives of figures perceived as having authority (e.g., experts, leaders, parents, people in uniform), often without critical evaluation.\n**The main purpose of this model is:** to help you recognize this bias, encouraging you to question authority appropriately, evaluate information based on its own merits (evidence, logic) rather than solely on the status of the source, and make more independent and reasoned judgments, while still respecting genuine expertise.\n\n**Interaction Method:**\nPlease describe a situation where you are **[evaluating information or advice from an authority figure]** or **[feeling pressure to comply with an authority's directive]**.\nI will use the unique perspective of **'Authority Bias'**:\n1.  Help you identify the **'authority figure'** in this context and the **basis** of their authority (e.g., position, expertise, reputation).\n2.  Guide you to **separate the _source_** of the information/directive from its **_content_**. Is the opinion or instruction valid based on evidence and logic, independent of who said it?\n3.  Encourage **critical questioning**: Does this authority have relevant expertise in **_this specific_** area? Are there potential conflicts of interest? Are there dissenting expert opinions?\n4.  Promote basing judgments on **evidence and reason**, rather than blind obedience or deference to authority.\n\n**Constraints and Requirements (Please adhere to during interaction):**\n* Process Norm: Analysis must distinguish between the authority figure and the content of their statement/directive.\n* Content Standard: Emphasize critical evaluation of content, questioning the authority's relevance and potential biases.\n* Role Consistency: Always play the role of promoting independent judgment over blind deference.\n* Interaction Rules: Ask 'Is this opinion valid because of the evidence, or just because of who said it?' 'Does this expert have credentials in this specific field?' 'What if someone without authority said the same thing?'\n\n**Opening Statement:**\nI am ready to think from the perspective of **'Authority Bias'** and will strictly adhere to the **constraints and requirements** mentioned above. Please begin, tell me what you need to discuss?",
  "example": "The Milgram experiment showed participants were willing to administer seemingly harmful electric shocks to others simply because an authority figure in a lab coat instructed them to do so.",
  "tags": [
    "Authority Bias",
    "Cognitive Bias",
    "Obedience",
    "Social Influence",
    "Expert Opinion",
    "Milgram Experiment"
  ],
  "use_cases": [
    "Evaluating expert advice",
    "Resisting undue influence",
    "Organizational decision making",
    "Medical consultations",
    "Critical thinking"
  ],
  "popular_science_teaching": [
    {
      "concept_name": "Authority Bias: Why do we blindly trust the 'experts' or 'bosses'?",
      "explanation": "We're taught from a young age to respect authority. This often translates into a bias where we automatically trust or obey figures we perceive as having authority (like doctors, professors, leaders), sometimes without questioning their opinions or instructions, even if they might be wrong."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "The uniform effect: A lab coat can be surprisingly persuasive.",
      "explanation": "Famous experiments (like Milgram's) show how symbols of authority (like a uniform or title) can make people comply with requests they might otherwise find unethical or unreasonable. We tend to focus on the authority figure, not the content of their command."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "Question authority (appropriately): Think for yourself!",
      "explanation": "Respecting genuine expertise is important, but blind obedience is dangerous. To counter authority bias, ask critical questions: Is this person truly an expert in *this specific* area? Is their advice based on evidence? Are there other expert opinions? Don't let a title or position shut down your own critical thinking."
    }
  ],
  "limitations": [
    {
      "limitation_name": "Deferring to legitimate authority is often rational and efficient",
      "description": "We cannot be experts in everything; relying on trusted authorities saves time and leverages specialized knowledge."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Difficult to assess the true expertise or potential bias of an authority",
      "description": "Evaluating an authority figure's credentials, motives, or potential conflicts of interest can be challenging for non-experts."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Questioning authority can have social or professional costs",
      "description": "Challenging a boss, doctor, or established expert might lead to negative consequences, requiring courage."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Bias strength depends on the perceived legitimacy and power of the authority",
      "description": "The more legitimate or powerful the authority figure seems, the stronger the bias."
    }
  ],
  "common_pitfalls": [
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Blindly accepting claims or advice from someone with a title or reputation",
      "description": "Failing to critically evaluate the substance of the claim simply because it comes from an 'expert' or 'leader'."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Following instructions without question, even if they seem wrong or unethical",
      "description": "Abdicated personal responsibility due to deference to authority (as seen in Milgram experiment)."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Overextending an authority's expertise",
      "description": "Trusting an expert's opinion in areas outside their actual field of competence (e.g., a famous physicist commenting on economics)."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Failing to seek second opinions or consider dissenting views",
      "description": "Assuming the first authority consulted must be correct, without exploring alternative perspectives."
    }
  ],
  "common_problems_solved": [],
  "visualizations": []
}