Have you ever paused to think about the stories we weave around success and failure? Consider someone who dedicates years, sacrificing leisure, friendships, and sleep, to build a business or gain entry into a prestigious college. If they succeed, how often do we hear, "It was destiny," or "I was just lucky"? Even when outsiders point to the relentless effort, the successful individual might downplay the hard work, attributing it all to fate. "If it wasn't meant to be," they might imply, "all that effort would have been pointless anyway."

Now, flip the coin. Imagine the same person starts something, faces an early setback, and gives up. The likely narrative? "It wasn't meant to be. I worked so hard, sacrificed sleep, and it still didn't pan out. It just wasn't my destiny."

There's a fascinating paradox here, isn't there? If success is destiny, why is it treated as a personal achievement? And if destiny is irrelevant, why do we often blame failure on fate rather than looking inward—at potential missteps, poor planning, or simply not using the right approach? If everything is predetermined, why strive, why sacrifice, why deny ourselves simple pleasures?

This isn't about settling the debate on predetermination versus free will. Instead, it's about noticing how quickly we link events—especially those whose causes aren't immediately clear—to abstract, sometimes illogical forces like "destiny." More importantly, it's about understanding how these hasty conclusions shape our lives and perceptions.

The Two Minds Within

It often feels like two distinct personalities reside within our consciousness, each with a different approach to the world. This mirrors the influential ideas of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, who described two fundamental ways our minds work, often referred to as System 1 and System 2. For our purposes, let's call them Personality 1 and Personality 2:

• Personality 1: This is the fast thinker. It makes decisions quickly, often relying on intuition and gut feelings rather than deep analysis. It doesn't expend much effort. This corresponds to Kahneman's System 1.

• Personality 2: This is the slow, deliberate thinker. It weighs options carefully, considers details, looks at situations from multiple angles, and invests significant mental energy in the process. This corresponds to Kahneman's System 2.

Because deep thought requires effort, our brains often default to the path of least resistance: Personality 1. Let's face it, a preference for ease seems deeply ingrained in us. As Kahneman highlighted, when we're hungry, tired, stressed, or under pressure, the fast, intuitive Personality 1 tends to grab the reins completely, sidelining the more effortful Personality 2. This tendency underlies many of the mental shortcuts and biases we experience daily.

Why 'Mine' Always Feels More Valuable: The Endowment Effect

Think about a scenario: two children are squabbling in the yard. Parents rush out. Have you ever witnessed a parent immediately side with the other child, saying, "Yes, my child was wrong to hit yours"? It sounds absurd, doesn't it? We instinctively protect what's "ours."

This is a glimpse of the Endowment Effect. This psychological phenomenon means we perceive things we possess as more valuable and important than they objectively are, simply because they belong to us. That phone you want to sell for $400? You'd likely only value it at $300 if someone else were selling the exact same one. Yours feels more valuable because it's yours.

This effect isn't limited to physical possessions or loved ones. It extends to our identification with a country, a set of beliefs, or even a religion. If someone criticizes our home country, even with valid points, our immediate reaction is often defensive. We strive to prove our country is better. Similarly, individuals often consider their own religion—whether adopted through family tradition or personal choice—as the "only true path," dismissing others, sometimes without any real knowledge of those alternative beliefs. If it's our religion, it must be better.

Personality 1 fuels this effect. However, if we engage Personality 2 more often, we might realize that ownership alone doesn't confer superiority or correctness. Just because a child, a country, or a belief system is "ours" doesn't automatically make it the best. It prompts the question: When we champion something connected to us, are we sure we aren't valuing it more highly just because it's ours?

Seeking Proof, Not Truth: The Trap of Confirmation Bias

Let's look at another common mental habit: Subjective Confirmation, often known as Confirmation Bias. Imagine an argument with a friend about whether eating meat is healthy. You believe it is; your friend insists it's harmful. Each of you sets out to find evidence. Your friend quickly finds an article titled "The Dangers of Eating Meat" and presents it triumphantly. But if you looked at their search query, you might see they typed "Why eating meat is harmful," specifically seeking support for their existing viewpoint, rather than a neutral query like "effects of meat consumption" or "benefits and harms of meat."

In disagreements, when someone suggests "let's ask someone else," don't we usually propose asking a person we believe will agree with us? Our opponent naturally wants to consult someone likely to back their view. Fueled by Personality 1, the search for objective truth often takes a backseat to the desire to win the argument, not finding the actual truth. We might even find articles seemingly justifying harmful habits, like smoking, if our goal is simply to find "proof" for our side.

A concerning aspect of confirmation bias is that it can be particularly potent in intelligent, rational individuals. Why? Because admitting error can feel threatening to their self-image as smart and logical thinkers. So, rather than critically analyzing their own views, they might double down, continuing to believe in their unconditional correctness.

When Biases Collide: Justifying Mistakes and Limiting Beliefs

When the Endowment Effect and Confirmation Bias work together, the results can be quite revealing. Sometimes, even when we know deep down we've made a mistake, because the mistake is "ours" (Endowment Effect), we feel a need to defend it. Confirmation Bias then helps us search for and find justifications for our actions.

This is how, for instance, someone involved in corruption might rationalize taking a bribe by framing it as "helping someone get a job" or "providing a necessary service" that warrants payment. They become captive to their self-justification. Similarly, someone raised with limiting beliefs like "you can't achieve anything on your own" or "starting a business is impossible without huge capital" will constantly find examples that seem to confirm these ideas. They filter reality through this lens and continue to believe—and argue—that the world operates precisely according to these limitations. They unintentionally seek and find validation for the very ideas that hold them back.

Understanding these mental shortcuts doesn't mean we can eliminate them entirely, but awareness is the first step. By recognizing when Personality 1 might be driving our perceptions through ownership or a desire for confirmation, we give Personality 2 a chance to step in and ask: Am I seeing this clearly, or just seeing what I want to see?

References:

• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  Key Insights Relevant to Article: This seminal work by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman is the direct source for the "Personality 1" (System 1) and "Personality 2" (System 2) concepts discussed. It provides extensive detail on how these two modes of thinking operate and lead to various cognitive biases.
  Endowment Effect: Explored in depth, particularly within the framework of Prospect Theory, showing how ownership influences value perception (See Part 4, especially Chapters like 27: "The Endowment Effect").
  Confirmation Bias: While not always labeled identically to the "subjective confirmation" used in the text, the underlying mechanisms – seeking confirming evidence, the 'What You See Is All There Is' (WYSIATI) principle, and related heuristics – are discussed throughout the book, particularly in sections dealing with heuristics and biases (e.g., Part 2, Chapters 7-9 discuss related concepts like anchoring, availability, and the tendency to base judgments on limited, readily available information).