By Comparison...

So, let us imagine that you like candy that is hard, and you like candy that is sweet. And you are at the store to buy candy. There are three types of candy you are considering. Here's a diagram for you:


So, the further something is to the right on the picture, the harder. The higher up it is, the sweeter. So Candy A is fairly sweet, but not very hard. Candy B is very sweet, but also not that hard. Candy C is quite hard, but not all that sweet.

In situations where people are given choices that are arranged like this (unclear metrics, odd clumps, and so on), the majority of them choose Candy B or it's equivalent.

Comparing A and C is tricky.

Comparing B and C is tricky.

But comparing A and B is easier, and B looks better.

If you take A out of the picture, you get a much more even divide, but it takes more time for people to decide. Eliminating edge cases from a clump, and then finding the best in the clump, is a fast way to get a good decision.

But if everyone did this all the time, we'd never see the adoption of really game-changing ideas and technologies. This is a strategy for making incremental improvements, rather than one for leaping off into strangeness.

This bias can be partly managed by spending time developing differing ways to measure and look at the stuff in question. One early adopter might look at the diagram above, and places a straight line from the end of the up-pointing arrow to the end of the right-pointing arrow, looks for the candy that is "above the line", and picks candy C. Another plots out the location of their perfect candy, and measures for the closest. By doing these things, they change the meaning of the picture. Figuring that out does take more effort than most people are ready to spend at any given stop along the supermarket aisle, though.

The bias is also in constant motion; each presenter is looking to draw the picture that favors them, and more and more presenters know about this trick. How many miles per gallon does that car get? It doesn't say? That might be because if the marketers presented the car that way, the picture they'd be pushing is one where they can be clearly spotted as doing badly - or even just seen as running a close second place (uck). It's possible that they measure very well indeed, but the picture doesn't sell. American Apparel has had an exceptional track record on labour rights and comparative payscales, and on keeping their production domestic, but that picture doesn't sell their clothes. The picture that sells their clothes is on their billboard.

So, your friend invites you to go out to the bar with them, and you know that they're going in order to meet new people (in the bar sense, at least). If you note that they've spent extra time primping up to look good, but told you not to worry, then you might well be their for-comparison company. They don't need to be aware of this, of course - the night just goes better with a wingman.

(This post owes a deep finger-point to the book Predictably Irrational, which I have stolen from shamelessly)

(Also: What do women call "women wingmen"? Don't lie to me, ladies have them too.)