Thursday, October 29, 2026

The Tiffany Problem

We all suffer from the implications of predisposition or bias. I have striven to address these from the litigation perspective in Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025); Since then, I have published multiple posts focusing on the topic, see the 15 posts at the end of this one.

The simple fact is that our brains are what they are. They make judgements and arrive at conclusions. Despite the best advice of Sherlock Holmes, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data," Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), we all do it.

The "Tiffany Problem" is a great illustration of our minds at work. When we hear that name, we each have a touchstone. Upworthy notes that any of us might hear this and think of:
"the famous jewelry store, the teen singer from the 80s or the much-less-in-the-spotlight daughter of President Trump." 
Our inclination is to our familiar.

We are unlikely to think instead of the Middle Ages when we hear this "more modern name." And yet, Tiffany was a Middle Ages name. Thus, we perceive a character named Tiffany in a Middle Ages historical piece as a mistake or a problem.

We do not consciously conclude that there has been a mistake; we experience it as a reaction. It is "an instinct," and it is instilled in us because such names were not as prevalent in the reading we have done from that period. It is outside our experience and so antithetical to our personal experience.

The proponent of this "Tiffany Problem" predisposition says that people simply "know it's wrong and you can't tell them that what they know is wrong." Tiffany is an example, but there are various other words that we presume are modern and so rebel against when they are used in a historical manner.

This is entertaining, perhaps. There is a touch of novelty, some irony, and some self-discovery. The proponent of the theory has even prepared some media that is referenced in the Upworthy article. But the real point is that we are each a product of both nature and nurture. What we know is our own personal amalgamation of what we have been exposed to.

The point is that our intellect should be engaged. When something "feels off," that may be a valid conclusion worthy of our adherence. Or it may be simply a signal to us that intellectual engagement and some research is worthwhile.

As a side note, in a world where prediction models and AI large language models increasingly hold sway, we must remember they are suggesting based on what they have "seen." Their output and interpretation is subject to their algorithm, their data set, and their programmer's preferences. To some extent, they are likely governed by their own decisions, choices, and habits, just as we are.

The choice of intellectual engagement and curiosity is equally imperative, whether it is our bias or the computer's. Either way, our intellect is critical as the human in the loop in the path to gathering facts and foundations before we reach conclusions, per Mr. Holmes. 



Unseen Influence (July 2025)
"Welcome (back) to the Real World"(August 2025)
Halfway (August 2025)
Bias is Pernicious (August 2025)
Cats and Dogs (August 2025)
Gonna be alright (August 2025)
Perspectives on Virtuality (September 2025)
A hero? (January 2026)
Dunning Kruger (January 2026)
Yes, but How? (February 2026)
Relatively Speaking (March 2026)
Drive Carefully (May 2026)
The Johari Window and Negotiation (May 2026)
The Easy Lanes (June 2026)
Tipping in Negotiation? (June 2026)



at