You'd find that book interesting. One of Tetlock's (many) findings is that almost everyone overpredicts outlier events. That is, we expect large deviations to occur far more often than they usually do. This is especially true of the "Hedgehogs", but "Foxes" do it also.
This is interesting, but their are two possible ways to read this: (1) Overdiagonoses; (2) Actual Bias. They are quite different in character.
An actual bias would be (for example) poor people taking unfair bets. We know they will dis-regard odds and buy lottery tickets that are negative NPV.
An overdiagnoses migh be something else altogether. If i know dis-proportionate rewards accrue to being "first" or early, I will overdiagnose. This is a variant of strategic precedence (to infer seniority, status, or special priveledge). This goes buy other monikers, like offensive "land grab" or the more defensive "lick the cookie" tactic.
In any event, the con is just a trick to manipulate someone who has linearly locked on a path (biased or not). However you feed them the bait, your goal is to get them to believe they do not need to revise their priors.
