What kind of bias or logical fallacy is at play here? Where the answer is right in front of you but you can't detect it - right under your nose.

The Smuggler

Time and again Nasrudin passed from Persia to Greece on donkey-back.

Each time he had two panniers of straw, and trudged back without them. Every time the guard searched him for contraband. They never found any. ‘What are you carrying, Nasrudin?’ ‘I am a smuggler.’ Years later, more and more prosperous in appearance, Nasrudin moved to Egypt.

One of the customs men met him there. ‘Tell me, Mulla, now that you are out of the jurisdiction of Greece and Persia, living here in such luxury – what was it that you were smuggling when we could never catch you?’

‘Donkeys.’ said Nasrudin

The story of "The Smuggler" featuring Nasrudin presents an example of the cognitive bias known as "confirmation bias." This occurs when individuals focus on information that conforms to their preconceptions or expectations, while ignoring or undervaluing evidence that contradicts them.

In this scenario, the customs officials were so fixated on the idea that Nasrudin was smuggling contraband hidden within or among the straw that they failed to consider other possibilities. They consistently searched the straw, expecting to find illegal goods, and overlooked the most obvious and simplest explanation: that the donkeys themselves were the smuggled items. This illustrates how a narrow focus and preconceived notions can blind individuals to the solution that is "right under their noses."

Additionally, this narrative could also point to the "Ockham's Razor" principle being ignored, which suggests that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. The customs officials overcomplicated the situation by assuming the presence of hidden contraband rather than recognizing the straightforward act of smuggling donkeys.