About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The Psychological Search For Familiar Abuse Related Behaviors From the Perpetrators of Childhood Abuse of Adopted Children


The Psychological Search For Familiar Abuse Related Behaviors From the Perpetrators of Childhood Abuse of Adopted Children

Adult adopted children that continue to suffer the psychological effects from childhood abuse and maltreatment, must map out the childhood injustices forced on them. In reading many specific behavioral terms, theories and definitions outlined in psychology, sociology, spontaneous memories occur or are remembered in a safe logical perspective that can be applied to the circumstances of the childhood abuse.
The List of Cognitive Biases is a great subject to explore the manipulative thought processes of the parent perpetrator of the child's destroyed, ruined and terror filled childhood.


What Is Cognitive Biases?
Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in certain ways. Cognitive biases can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics.
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[1] Some are effects of information-processing rules (i.e. mental shortcuts), calledheuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Such effects are called cognitive biases.[2][3] Biases in judgment or decision-making can also result from motivation, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Some biases have a variety of cognitive ("cold") or motivational ("hot") explanations. Both effects can be present at the same time.[4][5]
There are also controversies as to whether some of these biases count as truly irrational or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. This kind of confirmation bias has been argued to be an example ofsocial skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[6]

The research on these biases overwhelmingly involves human subjects. However, some of the findings have appeared in non-human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has also been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.

Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases

Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general. They arise as a replicable result to a specific condition: when confronted with a specific situation, the deviation from what is normally expected can be characterized by:
Ambiguity effectThe tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown."
Anchoring orfocalismThe tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
Attentional biasThe tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring thoughts.
Availability heuristicThe tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.
Availability cascadeA self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").
Backfire effectWhen people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.
Bandwagon effectThe tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior 

Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect

Belief biasAn effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
Bias blind spotThe tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.
Cheerleader effectThe tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.
Choice-supportive biasThe tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
Clustering illusionThe tendency to over-expect small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).
Confirmation biasThe tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
Congruence biasThe tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.
Conjunction fallacyThe tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.[22]
Conservatism orregressive biasA certain state of mind wherein high values and high likelihoods are overestimated while low values and low likelihoods are underestimated.
Conservatism (Bayesian)The tendency to insufficiently revise one's belief when presented with new evidence.
Contrast effectThe enhancement or reduction of a certain perception's stimuli when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.
Curse of knowledgeWhen better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people.
Decoy effectPreferences for either option A or B changes in favor of option B when option C is presented, which is similar to option B but in no way better.
Denomination effectThe tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).
Distinction biasThe tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.
Duration neglectThe neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value
Empathy gapThe tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.
Endowment effectThe fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.
EssentialismCategorizing people and things according to their essential nature, in spite of variations.
Exaggerated expectationBased on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).
Experimenter's  expectation   biasThe tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.
Functional fixednessLimits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.
Focusing effectThe tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.
Forer effect orBarnum effectThe observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.
Framing effectDrawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how or by whom that information is presented.
Frequency illusionThe illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (see also recency illusion)
Gambler's fallacyThe tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
Hard-easy effectBased on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough.
Hindsight biasSometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable at the time those events happened.
Hostile media effectThe tendency to see a media report as being biased, owing to one's own strong partisan views.
Hot-hand fallacyThe "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
Hyperbolic discountingThe tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are. Also known as current moment bias, present-bias, and related to Dynamic Inconsistency.
Identifiable victim effectThe tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified person at risk than to a large group of people at risk.
IKEA effectThe tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the end result.
Illusion of controlThe tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.
Illusion of validityBelief that further acquired information generates additional relevant data for predictions, even when it evidently does not.
Illusory correlationInaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.
Impact biasThe tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
Information biasThe tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
Insensitivity to sample sizeThe tendency to under-expect variation in small samples
Irrational escalationThe phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.
Just-world hypothesisThe tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
Less-is-better effectThe tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not jointly
Loss aversion"the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it". (see sunk cause and endowment effect).
Mere exposure effectThe tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.
Money illusionThe tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.
Moral credential effectThe tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Negativity effectThe tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person they dislike, to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to the person's inherent nature orof young people to be more negative information in the descriptions of others
Negativity biasPsychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.
Neglect of probabilityThe tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
Normalcy biasThe refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Observation selection biasThe effect of suddenly noticing things that were not noticed previously – and as a result wrongly assuming that the frequency has increased.
Observer-expectancy effectWhen a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it.
Omission biasThe tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
Optimism biasThe tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking)
Ostrich effectIgnoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Outcome biasThe tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Overconfidence effectExcessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.
PareidoliaA vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man on the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism biasThe tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
Planning fallacyThe tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
Post-purchase rationalizationThe tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pro-innovation biasThe tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention or innovation's usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses.
Pseudocertainty effectThe tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
ReactanceThe urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reverse Psychology).
Reactive devaluationDevaluing proposals only because they are purportedly originated with an adversary.
Recency illusionThe illusion that a word or language usage is a recent innovation when it is in fact long-established (see also frequency illusion).
Restraint biasThe tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effectRhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the defense's use of the phrase "If the gloves don't fit, then you must acquit."
Risk compensation / Peltzman effectThe tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Selective perceptionThe tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflexThe tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.
Social comparison biasThe tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths.
Social desirability biasThe tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in one self and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.
Status quo biasThe tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).
StereotypingExpecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effectThe tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.
Subjective validationPerception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
Survivorship biasConcentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn't because of their lack of visibility.
Time-saving biasUnderestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed and overestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
Unit biasThe tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effects on the consumption of food in particular.
Well travelled road effectUnderestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
Zero-risk biasPreference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Zero-sum heuristicIntuitively judging a situation to be zero-sum (i.e., that gains and losses are correlated). Derives from the zero-sum game in game theory, where wins and losses sum to zero. The frequency with which this bias occurs may be related to the social domination orientation personality factor.

 In psychology, the negativity effect is the tendency of people, 
when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person they dislike, 
to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to the person's inherent nature. 

The negativity effect is the inverse of the positivity-effect which is found when people evaluate the causes of the behaviors of a person they like
Both effects are attributional biases
The negativity effect plays a role in producing the fundamental attribution error,
 a major contributor to prejudice.
It's said in politics that the negativity effect is more influential with voters than the positivity effect.
The term negativity effect also refers to the tendency of some people to assign more weight to negative information in descriptions of others. Research has shown that the negativity effect in this sense is quite common, especially with younger people; older adults, however, display less of this tendency and more of the opposite tendency (the positivity effect)  _________________________________________________