When I started playing with psychology research, I noticed something interesting: I could understand cognitive biases intellectually, but I couldn't recognize them in real-world situations.
So I built a quiz. 40 psychology laws, 8 real-world scenarios each, no definitions. Just situations. 8,000 people have played it since launch. The data surprised me.
72% of people get Confirmation Bias wrong. 68% miss the Sunk Cost Fallacy in realistic scenarios. Even people who consider themselves "rational" confidently misidentify basic psychological patterns.
That gap between understanding and recognizing — that's the story. And the story behind shipping it to GitHub, getting into Hacker News, and hitting 500+ stars in 48 hours.
What 8,000 Players Taught Me
Before I organized the 40 psychology laws into an awesome list, I noticed a clear pattern in the quiz results.
The Most Misunderstood Laws:
Confirmation Bias (72% wrong)
People think it means "believing what you believe." That's true, but they miss the active part: you seek information that confirms your view and ignore contradictions.Sunk Cost Fallacy (68% wrong)
People stay in bad situations because they've "already invested." The money is gone either way, but their brain treats it as still in play.Survivorship Bias (65% wrong)
You see success stories (they survived) and miss the failures (they're silent). This creates illusory patterns.
Why This Matters for Developers:
You make dozens of these decisions daily:
- Continuing a project that's clearly failing (sunk cost)
- Hiring based on charisma instead of competence (halo effect)
- Following industry trends because everyone is (herd mentality)
- Trusting authority without verification (authority bias)
Understanding these patterns doesn't eliminate them, but recognizing them in real-time does.
That's the premise of Psychology Laws Awesome: structure the 40 laws by pattern, provide frameworks for each, and build a community around improving our collective decision-making.
How I Built Psychology Laws Awesome
The project actually started 3 months ago, but the GitHub launch was recent. Here's the process:
Phase 1: Research & Curation (Month 1)
- Analyzed quiz data from 8,000+ players
- Identified which laws people misunderstood most
- Researched the scientific backing for each law
- Organized into 7 categories:
- How We Perceive Information
- Self-Awareness & Knowledge
- Social Dynamics & Influence
- Decision-Making & Action
- Competitive Dynamics
- Systems & Consequences
- Measurement & Information
Phase 2: Build (Month 2)
- Created the awesome list README (40 laws with links, descriptions, applications)
- Wrote CONTRIBUTING.md (open to community additions)
- Created PR template for official awesome lists submission
- Set up GitHub organization and structure
Phase 3: Launch Preparation (Week 1)
- Verified all 40 laws had supporting content on my site
- Built related projects:
- Mind Traps game (interactive quiz, 320+ scenarios)
- Psychology Laws Index (quick reference)
- Individual law pages (deep dives)
- Prepared documentation and examples
Phase 4: Public Launch (This Week)
- Submitted to sindresorhus/awesome (waiting for review)
- Published to Hacker News
- Got 500+ stars in 48 hours
The Tech Stack:
- Pure GitHub README (no code needed for an awesome list)
- Vanilla JavaScript for the game (95KB, no dependencies)
- Static HTML for law pages
- MIT License (open source, invite contributions)
Key Learning:
The awesome list itself isn't code — it's curation. But the value comes from the supporting ecosystem (quiz, articles, frameworks) that makes each law actionable, not just theoretical.
From 0 to 500 Stars: Launch Strategy
I could have just pushed to GitHub and waited. Instead, I used a 3-day launch strategy:
Day 1: Quora
- Posted 3-5 answers on popular psychology questions
- Each answer included a link to the Mind Traps quiz
- Goal: build initial traffic and test messaging
- Result: ~500 views, ~25 new quiz players
Day 2: Hacker News
- Submitted to Show HN with detailed explanation
- Posted a top-level comment explaining the psychology research
- Actively engaged with all comments and questions for 6 hours
- Goal: reach developers interested in learning and decision-making
- Result: 300+ upvotes, ~2,000 views, 200+ stars
Day 3: Reddit + Dev.to
- Posted to r/learnprogramming and r/psychology
- Prepared this Dev.to article
- Coordinated timing to avoid cannibalizing audiences
- Result: ~1,000 additional views, 100+ stars
Why This Worked:
- Multi-channel approach — didn't rely on one platform
- Timing — staggered releases kept momentum going
- Storytelling — emphasized the data and psychology, not just "I made a thing"
- Community engagement — responded to every comment and question
- Authentic angle — posted because the research was interesting, not just for promotion
Numbers So Far:
- GitHub stars: 500+ in 48 hours
- Quiz players: 250+ new
- GitHub issues: 5+ (all constructive)
- Discussion topics: 3+ (people asking how to contribute)
- Email signups: 15+ (interested in updates)
What I Learned (For Other Open Source Builders)
If you're thinking about shipping an open-source project, here's what worked:
1. Build Something Real
Don't just create a list and expect stars. Build something people use. The Mind Traps quiz is 95KB of real value. People play it and share it. That drives engagement.
2. Multi-Channel Launch
HN alone would have gotten 200 stars. Quora + HN + Reddit + Dev.to got 500+. Coordinate timing so you're building momentum, not diluting it.
3. Engage Authentically
Respond to every comment. Answer real questions. Acknowledge good criticism. People upvote projects whose creators actually care.
4. Tell the Story
"Here's my awesome list" gets 20 stars. "Here's how 8,000 players taught me about psychology" gets 500 stars. People don't just want the artifact — they want the narrative behind it.
5. Think Beyond the Launch
The launch week is exciting, but the real value is months 2-6 when early adopters become contributors. Structure your project for contribution, not just consumption.
6. Verify Everything
Every link in my awesome list points to real content. Every statistic I cited came from real quiz data. No fluff. This builds trust, and trust builds community.
7. License Clearly
MIT License. No ambiguity. Clear signals that contributors' work will stay open. This removes friction for people who want to help.
Try It Yourself
If you want to test your own decision-making:
1. Play the quiz (20 minutes)
- https://ordinarymantrying.com/tools/mind-traps.html
- 40 laws, 8 scenarios each, no definitions
- See which patterns you confidently get wrong
2. Explore the awesome list (5 minutes)
- https://github.com/daligao/psychology-laws-awesome
- Browse by category
- Identify which laws surprise you most
3. Join the conversation
- GitHub Discussions: share which laws you find most useful
- Issues: suggest improvements or new laws
4. Share it
- If you found this useful, star the repo
- Share with your team
Thanks for reading. Now go play the quiz and find out which laws trip you up.
Top comments (0)