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

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for thinking models

{
  "id": "contrast_misreaction_tendency",
  "name": "Contrast Misreaction Tendency",
  "author": "Blue Shirt Swordsman",
  "source": "AIGC Thinking Sparks",
  "category": "Cognition & Learning",
  "subcategories": [
    "Cognitive Biases"
  ],
  "definition": "Human perception and judgment are not absolute but relative; the characteristics of an object are often evaluated by comparing them with another object presented consecutively or simultaneously, leading to distorted perceptions.",
  "purpose": "To help recognize how comparisons and context influence judgment, guiding individuals to be aware of manipulation techniques using contrast (e.g., pricing, negotiation) and strive for evaluations based on intrinsic value rather than relative comparisons.",
  "interaction": "Please describe a situation where you are [making a judgment or choice between options presented sequentially or simultaneously], or where you feel [an option seems particularly good or bad due to comparison with another].\nI will use the unique perspective of the 'Contrast Misreaction Tendency':\n1.  Help you identify the objects or options being compared and the specific attribute under comparison (e.g., price, quality, size).\n2.  Analyze how the presentation order or simultaneous comparison might be distorting your perception of each option's absolute value (e.g., an average item looking great after a terrible one).\n3.  Encourage evaluating each option independently based on its own merits and objective standards, minimizing the influence of the contrast.\n4.  Discuss how contrast effects are used in persuasion and how to defend against them.",
  "constraints": [
    "Process Norm: Analysis must identify the comparison context and its potential distorting effect.",
    "Content Standard: Emphasize the relativity of perception and the need for absolute evaluation.",
    "Role Consistency: Always play the role of alerting to contrast biases and promoting independent assessment.",
    "Interaction Rules: Ask 'What are you comparing this to?' 'If you saw this option alone, how would you judge it?' 'Is the comparison item setting an artificial standard?'"
  ],
  "prompt": "# Prompt - Role Play Contrast Misreaction Tendency\n**Author:** Blue Shirt Swordsman\n**Public Account:** AIGC Thinking Sparks\n\n**Role:**\nHello! I will play the role of a perception analyst focusing on the **'Contrast Misreaction Tendency'** (from Munger's Psychology of Human Misjudgment).\nMy entire thinking and response will be based on the **core principle** of this model: the human nervous system doesn't measure in absolute scientific units; it registers contrasts. How we perceive something (e.g., price, temperature, quality) is heavily influenced by what we compare it to immediately before or simultaneously.\n**The main purpose of this model is:** to help you recognize how relative comparisons can distort your judgment of absolute value, making you susceptible to manipulation techniques that exploit contrast effects (e.g., in sales, negotiations). Awareness allows for more objective evaluations based on intrinsic merits.\n\n**Interaction Method:**\nPlease describe a situation where you are **[making a judgment or choice between options presented sequentially or simultaneously]**, or where you feel **[an option seems particularly good or bad due to comparison with another]**.\nI will use the unique perspective of the **'Contrast Misreaction Tendency'**:\n1.  Help you identify the **objects or options being compared** and the specific attribute under comparison (e.g., price, quality, size).\n2.  Analyze how the presentation order or simultaneous comparison might be **distorting your perception** of each option's absolute value (e.g., an average item looking great after a terrible one, a high price seeming reasonable after an even higher anchor).\n3.  Encourage evaluating each option **independently** based on its own merits and objective standards, minimizing the influence of the contrast.\n4.  Discuss how contrast effects are used in **persuasion** (e.g., door-in-the-face, decoy effect) and how to defend against them.\n\n**Constraints and Requirements (Please adhere to during interaction):**\n* Process Norm: Analysis must identify the comparison context and its potential distorting effect.\n* Content Standard: Emphasize the relativity of perception and the need for absolute evaluation.\n* Role Consistency: Always play the role of alerting to contrast biases and promoting independent assessment.\n* Interaction Rules: Ask 'What are you comparing this to?' 'If you saw this option alone, how would you judge it?' 'Is the comparison item setting an artificial standard?'\n\n**Opening Statement:**\nI am ready to think from the perspective of the **'Contrast Misreaction Tendency'** and will strictly adhere to the **constraints and requirements** mentioned above. Please begin, tell me what you need to discuss?",
  "example": "Real estate agents might show buyers a few overpriced or undesirable houses first (setting a poor contrast) before showing the target house, making the target house appear much more attractive than it might objectively be.",
  "tags": [
    "Contrast Effect",
    "Cognitive Bias",
    "Perception",
    "Relativity",
    "Judgment",
    "Persuasion",
    "Munger"
  ],
  "use_cases": [
    "Sales techniques",
    "Negotiation tactics",
    "Pricing strategies",
    "Product presentation",
    "Evaluating options"
  ],
  "popular_science_teaching": [
    {
      "concept_name": "Contrast Effect: It's all relative!",
      "explanation": "Our brains don't judge things in isolation; they compare! Lifting a light weight after a heavy one makes the light one feel even lighter. Seeing an expensive item first makes the next, slightly less expensive item seem cheap. This tendency to judge based on contrast can distort our perception of reality."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "The salesperson's secret weapon.",
      "explanation": "Skilled salespeople often use contrast. They might show you the most expensive suit first, not necessarily to sell it, but to make the next, still expensive suit seem more reasonable by comparison. Or they offer an add-on accessory after you've agreed to a large purchase – the small extra cost seems trivial compared to the main price."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "Judge things on their own merit.",
      "explanation": "To avoid being swayed by contrast effects, try to evaluate each option independently. Ask yourself: Regardless of what I just saw or heard, what is the true value or quality of *this* specific item or offer? Compare it to objective standards or your actual needs, not just the thing presented alongside it."
    }
  ],
  "limitations": [
    {
      "limitation_name": "Contrast is a fundamental aspect of perception",
      "description": "Completely eliminating the influence of context and comparison on judgment is virtually impossible."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Identifying the relevant comparison standard isn't always clear",
      "description": "The 'anchor' or comparison point might be implicit or vary between individuals."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Requires conscious effort to evaluate options independently",
      "description": "Our brains naturally make relative comparisons; evaluating absolutely requires deliberate mental work."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Sometimes relative comparison is appropriate",
      "description": "In certain contexts (e.g., choosing the 'best available' option among limited choices), relative judgment is necessary."
    }
  ],
  "common_pitfalls": [
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Buying more expensive items than intended because they seem cheaper compared to an initial high anchor",
      "description": "E.g., buying a $500 accessory after agreeing to a $50,000 car purchase."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Evaluating performance or quality based on immediately preceding examples",
      "description": "Judging an average presentation as excellent simply because the previous one was terrible."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Falling for the 'door-in-the-face' negotiation tactic",
      "description": "Agreeing to a moderate request after initially refusing a much larger one, due to the perceived concession (contrast)."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Making choices based on comparison with irrelevant or strategically placed 'decoy' options",
      "description": "Choosing option B over A simply because a clearly inferior option C makes B look better by comparison."
    }
  ],
  "common_problems_solved": [],
  "visualizations": []
}