Thanks. I’m struggling to see the connection between what you write, and what I wrote, to be honest.

I certainly agree that we need to be as explicit as possible about our assumptions. In a sense, falling for WYSIATI is failing to recognize that we are making assumptions, let alone which ones. We very quickly become blind for that which appears obvious and ubiquitous to us (makes me think of the experiment with cats exposed to only vertical or horizontal features I read about a long time ago).

When you move to the perception of our own value, and the belief that we can control our environment… I am not sure whether you intend to be as absolutist as you sound, but I think that neither are absolute and categorical.

We have evolved to thrive within our environment, and as it became more complex, so did we (and vice versa).

I don’t know what you are alluding to with an ‘inhuman system’.

My view is that being subject to WYSIATI can lead to worse outcomes than being aware of (and trying to counter) it. That is irrespective of whether it is a defence mechanism. Shivering when cold actually does serve a purpose; ignoring facts outside our field of vision often does not. But while we cannot control that bodily reflex, we can consider the question whether there is more than we see, and decide whether or not to look for it and take it into account.

Accidental behavioural economist in search of wisdom. Uses insights from (behavioural) economics in organization development. On Twitter as @koenfucius