Confirmation Bias

[buster]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." So its not about the "facts" per se but rather positioning the facts in a light that advances your own agenda or ideas.

 

[SteveSRT8]

The very same logic allows you to examine your own thoughts and question your own rationalizations.

Just most of us won't do it.

The words 'rational' and 'objective' rarely apply to human beings.

 

[SuperDave456]

I reject your reality and substitute a version of my own.

 

[eljefino]

Does this explain AM talk radio?

My former boss was a perfect sucker, with straw man arguments I could easily defeat.

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Does this explain AM talk radio?

My former boss was a perfect sucker, with straw man arguments I could easily defeat.


and that is the one millionth use of the phrase 'straw man' on this forum...(or was it one millionth and one?)

 

[mechtech2]

Nonsense.
We put a man on the Moon by doing the OPPOSITE thinking.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: buster
Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." So its not about the "facts" per se but rather positioning the facts in a light that advances your own agenda or ideas.




You're certainly entitled to your own opinion.

 

[Pablo]

Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.

 

[fdcg27]

This is tantamount to saying that we can't learn.
I think that our personalities and our views are the product of everything that we've learned and experienced to date.
Some of us do look to information confirming our preconceptions to support them, but most of us are amenable to changing and refining our views based upon what we learn and experience through our lives.
Heck, BITOG taught me years ago as a lurker that 3K OCIs were foolish.
Were I really subject to confirmation bias, I could have paid attention to many other sources of information, and I'd still be draining the oil from each car every 3K.
A trivial example, but a telling one.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Nonsense.
We put a man on the Moon by doing the OPPOSITE thinking.

Never happened. Maybe that's where saddam hid his weapons of mass destruction.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: buster
Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." So its not about the "facts" per se but rather positioning the facts in a light that advances your own agenda or ideas.



Wasn't this the conclusion of exactly one recent paper? And by "this" I mean the original idea that your presentation drastically oversimplifies.

Either way, origins don't necessarily determine current function or utility. How reasoning arose and what purpose it currently serves are two different matters (although they may overlap).

 

[Shannow]

Read an article in New Scientist some time ago where they were studying brain scans of people who were being convinced that their long held beliefs were wrong. The parts of the brain that respond to pain became excited, and the fight/flight mechanisms commence.

i.e. it hurts to be wrong, and the body will fight to defend the meme.

So some people avoid it by finding information that fits and supports their pre-conceptions, while others scratch the itch and try to find better understandings on how things work around them.

Doesn't make all people the same, or prevent/preclude a moon programme

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: buster
Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." So its not about the "facts" per se but rather positioning the facts in a light that advances your own agenda or ideas.



Wasn't this the conclusion of exactly one recent paper? And by "this" I mean the original idea that your presentation drastically oversimplifies.

Either way, origins don't necessarily determine current function or utility. How reasoning arose and what purpose it currently serves are two different matters (although they may overlap).


That part should have been in quotes. It's part of the same link, from two different spots. One I could not post here. (political)

The author was stating that some researchers have postulated that.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: buster
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." So its not about the "facts" per se but rather positioning the facts in a light that advances your own agenda or ideas.




I already knew all of this.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.


Arguing with you zealots is good mental exercise. I can then totally waste normal people in everyday conversation.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.


Not a fair comment, Pablo.
I pay attention to your posts, as well as those of everyone else.
There are some gems among the dross.
That is the value of this site.
There is so much to learn, but the reader must keep an open mind.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.


Not a fair comment, Pablo.
I pay attention to your posts, as well as those of everyone else.
There are some gems among the dross.
That is the value of this site.
There is so much to learn, but the reader must keep an open mind.


True. I didn't say anything about the value of the material.

Fair? How to judge that? But everyone has a bias. There are no exemptions to that one.

 

[fdcg27]

I realize that all of us have biases.
The material has no value to the reader who can't set his biases or his current practices aside.
Unless one is willing to challenge his own biases, he cannot learn.
To me, the essence of learning is to allow one's thinking to evolve and change with the knowledge one gains.
To do otherwise is to remain mired in thinking and actions that may be obsolete or suboptimal, or even disfunctional.
We can learn and grow or not.
The choice is ours.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Well we know all the unbiased people on BITOG. All zero of them.


Of course everyone has biases, but it doesn't preclude people from thinking rationally. The first step is to recognize your own biases and seek out competing information. Or, if the biases are so strong, simply be resolved to the fact that you really can't look objectively at the issue. That's why I never post on VW threads...

Confirmation bias is very real, and just one of a host of cognitive biases. Understanding these phenomena is pretty much the first step to learning. Obviously, people can overcome these biases, or nothing new would ever be discovered. You know the old saying, "the greatest obstacle to discover is the illusion of knowledge"...