[strangestchild]

Absolutely. For example, the ingroup bias allows a group of related individuals to benefit at the expense of those with whom they are less likely to share genetic material; and the observation bias allows our brain to focus on information that is more likely to be of interest - if I tell you tigers have stripes, you're likely to notice more stripes and maybe spot more tigers.

In general, though, fallacies like this arise because the brain prefers rules that are simple and quick to apply - they may not be optimal in terms of the solution obtained, but they are effective heuristics once cost and time are factored in. It's better to spot a hidden tiger quickly but occasionally get it wrong, than to be the world's greatest tiger spotter given half an hour to think about it. Most probabilistic and decision-making fallacies fall into this bracket - the middle-choice fallacy is actually a pretty good heuristic (as another poster pointed out)- but there are edge cases where it can trick us if we don't think over our decisions rationally when we have the time and freedom to.