In Spiritual and rational Behaviour I looked at commitment and loss aversion as drivers of irrational behaviour, without defining irrational behaviour. The definition L. Ron Hubbard. Founder of Scientology, gave of rational behaviour as behaviour that increases the probability of survival would make the Japanese samurai who disembowelled themselves if they commited a dishonourable act totally irrational whereas the act made perfect sense within their own culture. Similarly most religious practices are irrational to non believers. It seems better to define irrational behaviour as behaviour that tends to reduce the chances of achieving a desired goal, whether that is clinging to shares in a plunging market, to a doomed relationship or a miserable job fpr fear of landing somewhere worse.

Irrational behaviour can be linked to many if not all of the seven deadly sins and to similar Buddhist lists of undesirable behaviour. ( Of course much of what is considered sinful in many cultures is merely behaviour that differs from the norm) . Sloth can cause one to avoid opportunites because of the work involved. Greed can stop you taking profits just before share prices fall, and Lust is known to cloud the mind more effectively than alcohol or any other recreational drug.

Here I look at Value Attribution, the tendency to make judgements on superficual evidence. This may have had a value when something big with stripes was probably a tiger but seems less valuable today

Value attribution is just judging a book by its cover. The world famous violinist who, having donned sneakers and jeans to play in a New York Subway and ignored by commuters who would have paid hundreds to see him in a concert, the woman who spotted a stolen painting worth millions in the rubbish and nearly left it because of its cheap frame, the wine fanciers who in a blind test rated the same wine higher if they were told it was a quality wine and the students who were told the placebo drink they were given was an expensive memory enhancer and scored higher on a memory test then students who were told they were drinking a cheaper version of the same drink ( bothe drinks came out of the same bottle). All are guilty of value attribution.

The bottom line for value attribution is that appearances count. The antidote to value attribution is consciously to look at the subject and discard the presentation as far as possible. Of course the presentation cannot be ignored. Sloppy dress is sloppy dress and may indicate dangerous carelessness, Extremely bad grammar may hinder performance if communication skills are needed and a surly manner may indicate a lack of interpersonal skills that could damage a potential relationship. But you need to look at things as they are not be carried away by minor details.