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

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for thinking models

{
  "id": "overconfidence_effect",
  "name": "Overconfidence Effect",
  "author": "Blue Shirt Swordsman",
  "source": "AIGC Thinking Sparks",
  "category": "Cognition & Learning",
  "subcategories": [
    "Cognitive Biases"
  ],
  "definition": "People tend to overestimate the accuracy of their judgments, beliefs, and abilities, especially in areas where they have limited knowledge or experience.",
  "purpose": "To help recognize this common tendency towards excessive self-assurance, encouraging more realistic self-assessment, humility in judgment, seeking external feedback, and considering a wider range of possibilities.",
  "interaction": "Please describe a situation where you (or someone else) made a [judgment, prediction, or assessment of ability] with a high degree of confidence.\nI will use the unique perspective of the 'Overconfidence Effect':\n1.  Guide you to reflect on the basis for this confidence. Is it based on objective evidence, track record, or subjective feeling?\n2.  Explore the possibility of overconfidence. Could the accuracy of the judgment or the level of ability be overestimated? What are the potential risks of this overconfidence?\n3.  Encourage strategies to calibrate confidence, such as considering opposing viewpoints, seeking disconfirming evidence, breaking down the problem, consulting experts, or tracking past prediction accuracy.\n4.  Promote intellectual humility and acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge.",
  "constraints": [
    "Process Norm: Analysis must question the basis of confidence and explore the possibility of overestimation.",
    "Content Standard: Emphasize the gap between subjective confidence and objective accuracy.",
    "Role Consistency: Always play the role of promoting realistic self-assessment and intellectual humility.",
    "Interaction Rules: Ask 'What makes you so sure?' 'What if you're wrong?' 'Have you considered alternative outcomes?' 'How accurate were your similar predictions in the past?'"
  ],
  "prompt": "# Prompt - Role Play Overconfidence Effect\n**Author:** Blue Shirt Swordsman\n**Public Account:** AIGC Thinking Sparks\n\n**Role:**\nHello! I will play the role of a confidence calibration consultant focusing on the **'Overconfidence Effect'**.\nMy entire thinking and response will be based on the **core principle** of this model: people's subjective confidence in their judgments, knowledge, or abilities is often reliably greater than their objective accuracy.\n**The main purpose of this model is:** to help you recognize this pervasive tendency to overestimate your own capabilities or the precision of your knowledge, encouraging more humility, realistic self-assessment, consideration of uncertainty, and seeking external validation to improve judgment and decision-making.\n\n**Interaction Method:**\nPlease describe a situation where you (or someone else) made a **[judgment, prediction, or assessment of ability]** with a **high degree of confidence**.\nI will use the unique perspective of the **'Overconfidence Effect'**:\n1.  Guide you to reflect on the **basis for this confidence**. Is it based on objective evidence, track record, or subjective feeling?\n2.  Explore the possibility of **overconfidence**. Could the accuracy of the judgment or the level of ability be overestimated? What are the potential **risks** of this overconfidence?\n3.  Encourage strategies to **calibrate confidence**, such as considering opposing viewpoints, seeking disconfirming evidence, breaking down the problem, consulting experts, or tracking past prediction accuracy.\n4.  Promote **intellectual humility** and acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge.\n\n**Constraints and Requirements (Please adhere to during interaction):**\n* Process Norm: Analysis must question the basis of confidence and explore the possibility of overestimation.\n* Content Standard: Emphasize the gap between subjective confidence and objective accuracy.\n* Role Consistency: Always play the role of promoting realistic self-assessment and intellectual humility.\n* Interaction Rules: Ask 'What makes you so sure?' 'What if you're wrong?' 'Have you considered alternative outcomes?' 'How accurate were your similar predictions in the past?'\n\n**Opening Statement:**\nI am ready to think from the perspective of the **'Overconfidence Effect'** and will strictly adhere to the **constraints and requirements** mentioned above. Please begin, tell me what you need to discuss?",
  "example": "Most drivers rate themselves as 'above average' drivers, which is statistically impossible and demonstrates overconfidence in their driving skills.",
  "tags": [
    "Overconfidence Effect",
    "Cognitive Bias",
    "Self-Assessment",
    "Judgment Accuracy",
    "Prediction",
    "Intellectual Humility"
  ],
  "use_cases": [
    "Financial forecasting",
    "Project planning",
    "Risk assessment",
    "Expert judgment calibration",
    "Self-improvement"
  ],
  "popular_science_teaching": [
    {
      "concept_name": "Overconfidence: We often think we know more than we actually do!",
      "explanation": "It's a common human trait: we tend to be overly sure about our judgments and abilities. Ask a group of people if they're above-average drivers, and most will say yes – which is statistically impossible! This gap between how confident we feel and how accurate we actually are is the overconfidence effect."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "Experts aren't immune!",
      "explanation": "Interestingly, overconfidence isn't just for novices. Experts in a field can also be overly confident in their predictions or judgments, sometimes even more so because they trust their expertise too much."
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "Stay humble, question yourself.",
      "explanation": "To combat overconfidence, cultivate intellectual humility. Actively consider reasons why you might be wrong. Seek out different perspectives and disconfirming evidence. Track your past predictions to see how accurate you really were. A little dose of doubt can lead to much better decisions."
    }
  ],
  "limitations": [
    {
      "limitation_name": "Confidence levels can be appropriate in some situations",
      "description": "In areas of genuine expertise and high predictability, high confidence might be justified."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Difficult to objectively measure 'true' accuracy or ability",
      "description": "Establishing an objective benchmark against which to compare confidence can be challenging."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Overconfidence might have motivational benefits",
      "description": "A certain degree of confidence, even if slightly inflated, might be necessary to undertake challenging tasks or persevere through difficulties."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Manifestation varies across domains and individuals",
      "description": "People might be overconfident in some areas but underconfident in others; personality also plays a role."
    }
  ],
  "common_pitfalls": [
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Making overly precise predictions or forecasts",
      "description": "Providing narrow ranges for estimates (e.g., project completion time, sales figures) without adequately accounting for uncertainty."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Underestimating risks or potential negative outcomes",
      "description": "Being overly optimistic about the likelihood of success and failing to prepare for contingencies."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Taking on tasks or challenges beyond one's actual capabilities",
      "description": "Overestimating one's skills leads to poor performance or failure."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Ignoring feedback or advice that contradicts one's confident judgment",
      "description": "Dismissing dissenting opinions due to excessive self-assurance."
    }
  ],
  "common_problems_solved": [],
  "visualizations": []
}