Comparative Bias

I see a lot of talk about biases in effective altruist circles. I agree that it is very important to acknowledge that the human mind is flawed and consistently makes many mistakes. I wish there was much more discussion of how these biases compare to one another. On many topics there are biases going in both directions and without some sense of how they compare to one another it is hard to make sense of where the bias actually ends up leading. It seems that people assume that most people are biased against their specific perspective, rather than towards it.

Imagine for example that there is a member of the LessWrong community who is considering x-risk:

Biases that would make this person think that x-risk is a large concern

Biases that would make this person think that x-risk is not a large concern

Anchoring—The tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor,” on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information that we acquire on that subject)

Ambiguity effect—The tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem “unknown.”

Availability Cascade—A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or “repeat something long enough and it will become true”)

Availability heuristic—The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater “availability” in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.

Attentional bias—The tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring thoughts

This is just from the “A” section of the very long list of biases from Wikipedia and I am sure that a full list would have dozens of biases going each way. I am less interested in this specific example and more interested in how people deal in general with conflicting biases. What do you think?