Confirmation bias.

[Iwannaplato]

There really is a ton of research on confirmation bias. Wikipedia is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias There are links to research papers at the bottom if you don't find what you are looking for in the article.

I know that. It's clear evidence that learning about it helps one. For my own reasons I didn't really like the Finland study. I'll do some looking. I do think one can get better at preventing being misled by the bias and also that some people are better at it for whatever reasons. I wonder however if those who are have actually made a specific conscious choice. And also I have a concern that to really get at confirmation bias one has to question things on a very deep level, to the degree that one ends up in a kind of very neutral worldview for a while, outside not just fringe paradigms and models but also mainstream ones.

Anyway, confirmation bias can drive people to greatness, and it can make them look like fools.

Yes, betting on a hypothesis and like a pit bull holding on to it regardless of the evidence has led to all sorts of inventions, successful businesses, happy marriages, postive paradigmatic changes and more. And then the bad stuff.
How one develops a heuristic for oneself is a challenge. And then a general heuristic for 'everybody' even more so.

...I find myself misinterpreted often, and make errors of interpretation myself.

As often as not, that will be because whoever reads your work will be seeing it through their own biases.
[/quote]And today, more than at any earlier point in my lifetime, there is the team lens bias. You are either with those evil/insane/irrational people over there or you are with us. The bias that there are two teams, one is wrong, one is right and those are the choices.

[tillingborn]

...I have a concern that to really get at confirmation bias one has to question things on a very deep level, to the degree that one ends up in a kind of very neutral worldview for a while, outside not just fringe paradigms and models but also mainstream ones.

It's part of philosophical training to play around with Cartesian scepticism. Anyone who has been taught western philosophy at even an introductory level will be familiar with "I think, therefore I am" and its derivation. The one fact that philosophy can prove is that there is thinking, or more generally, experience going on. Everything else is theory laden. What people tend to do is adopt premises that they happen to find more compelling, or they simply prefer, things like the world is material/ideal, God exists/doesn't exist, the state has a role/doesn't have a role, all of which can be supported by evidence, in most cases the same evidence.

...today, more than at any earlier point in my lifetime, there is the team lens bias. You are either with those evil/insane/irrational people over there or you are with us. The bias that there are two teams, one is wrong, one is right and those are the choices.

In my no doubt biased opinion, that is largely down to conservative fusionism. Since the 1950's there has been a drive to 'unite the right', which loosely consists of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and religious conservatives, all of which are the adoption of a particular premise or bias. While there is some overlap, the thing that most successfully unites what are three different constituencies is suspicion, fear and hatred of people who challenge those ideas. People who are not conservative are themselves a disparate bunch but are lumped together to make them seem more dangerous than they actually are. You will have no trouble finding people with a different analysis.

[ThinkOfOne]

Here's one we could all learn from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1juPBoxBdc
But probably won't.

As a matter of curiosity, what leads you to believe that it "probably won't"?

There are a few here who are genuinely curious and/or receptive who have little to learn about confirmation bias. The thing with confirmation bias though, is that confirmation bias persuades some of us that we are immune to it. You don't have to look far in this forum to find examples of people who believe their study, experience or intellect makes them nearly infallible. They are not likely to learn much.

Let's look at your assertion:
"Here's one we could all learn from...but probably won't."

Realistically confirmation bias runs a spectrum from "not at all prone to CB" to "extremely prone to CB". The more prone to CB the more likely to not to learn from it. Ask yourself what characteristics make one most prone to CB.

[tillingborn]

Realistically confirmation bias runs a spectrum from "not at all prone to CB" to "extremely prone to CB". The more prone to CB the more likely to not to learn from it. Ask yourself what characteristics make one most prone to CB.

When I do that, the answers are characteristics I don't perceive myself as having. So clearly I'm missing something.

[Iwannaplato]

Realistically confirmation bias runs a spectrum from "not at all prone to CB" to "extremely prone to CB". The more prone to CB the more likely to not to learn from it. Ask yourself what characteristics make one most prone to CB.

When I do that, the answers are characteristics I don't perceive myself as having. So clearly I'm missing something.

I think it's actually better to see what one's traits might lead one to have confirmation biases about. One trait that is supposed to make it less likely to have confirmation bias is openness. Great. One can then, if one this trait and other good ones in relation to CB, and lacks traits associated with being affected a lot by CB, one can self-congratulate.

People who are open tend to be on the liberal end (american sense of liberal) politically. And those who score low on it tend to be more conservative.

I think the most useful thing, here, is to wonder what biases having a liberal outlook might lead to. (regardless of which position is right and should lead us or is more moral and should guide us).

So, an inventory of positions one has, regardless of whether the indicate likely CB effects, and then trying to see what these positions:politically, philosophically, morally, epistemologically, etc., could then be questioned in the sense of OK, what biases could this lead to. What does my group or my psychology have a good chance of making me more likely to notice, believe, support, deny both in the specific (events, people,) and in general.

I think this was what I was wrestling with in our earlier posts. I think the people who focus on CB tend to have other traits and positions. And I happen to share many of them. But a big problem arises if they are aware of this but due to specific conditions and issues, that groups blind spots are suddenly vastly more important.

So, yeah, they're great in general. You want someone to work in your company to see what assumptions are being made in a broad range of issue, sure hire one of them.

But be aware that with certain kinds of problems and issue, their blind spots may be suddenly more important than the blind spots of the others.

Further, companies, governments, they know about these blind spots. They hire the best cognitive scientists and others with information to manipulate. They may have your (in generaly, that is mine also) number.

And the you're-not-one-of-them immoral, irrational, evil people in THAT group works well, especially if subtly applied on members of all groups.

You need subtle with the people who score high on openness while blunt works just fine with those less open. But you keep that subtle manipulation up a long time, and anyone is vulnerable.

[ThinkOfOne]

Realistically confirmation bias runs a spectrum from "not at all prone to CB" to "extremely prone to CB". The more prone to CB the more likely to not to learn from it. Ask yourself what characteristics make one most prone to CB.

When I do that, the answers are characteristics I don't perceive myself as having. So clearly I'm missing something.

Having skimmed portions of your discussion with Iwp, seems like neither of you have much understanding of the underlying causes of CB or even what CB actually is and is not.

Wouldn't it make sense to first gain a solid understanding of CB before trying to apply it to yourself? With that in mind, what's on your list of characteristics that make one most prone to CB?

[mickthinks]

Having skimmed portions of your discussion with Iwp, seems like neither of you have much understanding of the underlying causes of CB or even what CB actually is and is not. Wouldn't it make sense to first gain a solid understanding of CB before trying to apply it to yourself? With that in mind, what's on your list of characteristics that make one most prone to CB?

lol

[Age]

...how might you have worded the following differently, do you think, if you weren't aware of potential confirmation in yourself?

There are a few here who are genuinely curious and/or receptive who have little to learn about confirmation bias. The thing with confirmation bias though, is that confirmation bias persuades some of us that we are immune to it. You don't have to look far in this forum to find examples of people who believe their study, experience or intellect makes them nearly infallible. They are not likely to learn much.

I don't know. There are so many permutations of me not being me that it is impossible to choose one without being me.

What I mean is this was generally worded without qualification. 'Likely' in the last sentence an exception. Now without confirmation bias (and perhaps a change in personality also) you might have given us a list, yes. Or some other sign of even greater certainty. But in general it's a pretty flat judgment, presented with certainty. It also seems, at least, implicit that you are not someone in that group.

I could certainly give you a list of members who I think are batshit crazy, hence utterly oblivious to confirmation bias.

Are you brave enough to list them all, provide examples that support this view of yours here, and be OPEN to discussing whether it is your OWN confirmation bias here or not, which is making ' you' see 'them' as being so-called 'batshit crazy' and utterly oblivious to their OWN confirmation bias?

It is, after all, only through Truly OPEN where and when the ACTUAL Truth of things can come-to-light.

At the same time, I would concede that some might think I am crazy. I think it's a fairly safe rule that if you can't accept that you might be crazy, you are crazy. That's not to presume that just because I accept I might be crazy, it follows that I'm not.

It would be interesting to see, for example, what happens if people learn about confirmation bias. If they watch a documentary about it and then later are given some tests to check for confirmation bias, did they do better than controls? Of if they are given more entensive training: like discussions of potential confirmation bias by a journalist in an article.

There is a ton of research on this. Google 'confirmation bias research' for a flavour. Generally the results show that awareness of confirmation bias offers some protection. It all feeds into whether critical thinking, a component of philosophy, should be taught. Finland has been in the news recently because of its policy to teach critical thinking to the very young. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -fake-news

It is as SIMPLE as while one is ASSUMING or BELIEVING that they KNOW the truth of some thing, then they are NOT OPEN, and so confirmation bias exists. Conversely, while one is NEITHER ASSUMING NOR BELIEVING they KNOW the truth of things, then confirmation bias does NOT exist or exists in a far less way.

I suppose my questions to you and in general come from not finding that people who use the idea of confirmation bias when being critical of others seeming freer of it themselves - and given I have some fringie ideas, this makes me sensitive . But then my tallies can, of course, be confirmation biased based.

Without confirmation bias, it is quite possible that progress, scientific at least, would be severely hindered.

Either some thing is ACTUAL True or it is NOT. So, how, EXACTLY, without confirmation bias this would hinder finding or discovering the ACTUAL Truth?

A lot of great ideas have come about despite the prevailing consensus.

But what has consensus got to do with confirmation bias, itself, EXACTLY?

Good luck with your fringe ideas, I have a few of my own, but get a thicker skin; even mainstream ideas get a kicking.

(oh, and just to be clear. I believe CB exists and is common)

You're on safe ground there.

Could this BELIEF be causing a form of confirmation bias here?

[Age]

I don't know. There are so many permutations of me not being me that it is impossible to choose one without being me.

Understood. My main point was that here you are talking about your assessment of people in fairly certain terms. Despite the knowledge that your perceptions might be biased via confirmation bias. So, my idea was to set in motion a mulling, on both our parts: what does knowing about confirmation bias do in us. Despite your knowledge you could write quite strongly about people here and implicitly, via implicit contrast, yourself.

What I mean is this was generally worded without qualification. 'Likely' in the last sentence an exception. Now without confirmation bias (and perhaps a change in personality also) you might have given us a list, yes. Or some other sign of even greater certainty. But in general it's a pretty flat judgment, presented with certainty. It also seems, at least, implicit that you are not someone in that group.

I could certainly give you a list of members who I think are batshit crazy, hence utterly oblivious to confirmation bias. At the same time, I would concede that some might think I am crazy. I think it's a fairly safe rule that if you can't accept that you might be crazy, you are crazy. That's not to presume that just because I accept I might be crazy, it follows that I'm not.

So, if we go back to the OP...

Here's one we could all learn from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1juPBoxBdc
But probably won't.

You didn't say it, but I interpreted this as 'and it would be good if we all did learn from it. If I am wrong, let me know. But I am wondering about that idea. Would it be better? How do we know that?

Just FIND OUT and/or WORK OUT what CAUSES confirmation biases, and then you will HAVE what is needed to STOP them.

It REALLY IS this SIMPLE and EASY.

There is a ton of research on this. Google 'confirmation bias research' for a flavour. Generally the results show that awareness of confirmation bias offers some protection. It all feeds into whether critical thinking, a component of philosophy, should be taught. Finland has been in the news recently because of its policy to teach critical thinking to the very young. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -fake-news
Thanks for the link. I read the article and followed the link to the summation of the project. It's huge so what I actually want to see may be in there or it may not be in there. I'd actually like to see the protocols. And I think it would actually be better to test people, rather than survey their tendencies for distrust, say, or how they react to news. This would open a whole can of worms, though so I won't pursue that now. Suffice it to day I live in a country that is the same color as Finland and find people to be incredibly gullible.
OK, I read that sentence and it sounds like you are saying something positive about confirmation bias. Which is an interesting idea and one that I think has some truth in it, but the coming sentences of yours seems to be saying the opposite.
I was being playful with my 'sensitivity', my skin's pretty thick. But I do see a problem.

You're on safe ground there.
Yes. I just wanted it to be clear that I wasn't denying the phenomenon. That may have seemed too obvious to point out, but I find myself misinterpreted often, and make errors of interpretation myself. Wanted to nip that tangent in the bud.

[Age]

Thanks for the link. I read the article and followed the link to the summation of the project. It's huge so what I actually want to see may be in there or it may not be in there. I'd actually like to see the protocols. And I think it would actually be better to test people, rather than survey their tendencies for distrust, say, or how they react to news.

There really is a ton of research on confirmation bias. Wikipedia is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias There are links to research papers at the bottom if you don't find what you are looking for in the article.

Without confirmation bias, it is quite possible that progress, scientific at least, would be severely hindered.

OK, I read that sentence and it sounds like you are saying something positive about confirmation bias. Which is an interesting idea and one that I think has some truth in it...

It's no secret that there are different research groups exploring different ideas.

And, LOL, coincidentally they could ALL have their OWN confirmation biases, which, OBVIOUSLY, would defeat the whole purpose of 'research' on 'confirmation bias'.

This has been true since ancient Greece when there were different schools of thought prior to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They really were the culmination and to some degree the homogenisation of Pre-Socratic research groups like the Milesians, the Eleatics an Pythagoreans. The Dark Ages weren't as dark as popularly imagined, but in western Europe the philosophical project was largely reconciling Plato and Christianity. There was more innovation between 600BC and 300BC than in the next 1500 years, until things started picking up with the rivalry between Christianity and Islam, the crusades and the challenge to Platonism of Aristotle, whose work was reintroduced by Muslim scholars. It is an ugly truth about our species that nothing motivates us like conflict.

Talk about providing A PRIME EXAMPLE of confirmation bias AT WORK here, AND ALSO providing an ATTEMPT at 'trying to' "justify" Wrong doing.

The 20th century was remarkable for the progress made in nuclear physics and space exploration, both of which were driven by world wars and the ensuing cold war and the ideologies being fought over. Maybe that's stretching confirmation bias.
Anyway, confirmation bias can drive people to greatness, and it can make them look like fools.

I am NOT YET SURE you KNOW what the words 'confirmation bias' is MEANING or referring to here, EXACTLY.

...I find myself misinterpreted often, and make errors of interpretation myself.

As often as not, that will be because whoever reads your work will be seeing it through their own biases.

VERY WELL OBSERVED and ACKNOWLEDGED.

[Agent Smith]

Good job OP. All of us need this kinda reminder every now and then to ensure our thinking stays sharp. Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that we've barely scratched the surface of confirmation bias.

[Age]

Good job OP. All of us need this kinda reminder every now and then to ensure our thinking stays sharp. Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that we've barely scratched the surface of confirmation bias.

But this is as SIMPLE as while you are HOLDING a BELIEF or an ASSUMPTION that some 'thing' is true, then you will look for, even unconsciously, and "find" 'things' that confirm the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION.

This is just part of the process of the 'belief-system' and how it works.

[Agent Smith]

Good job OP. All of us need this kinda reminder every now and then to ensure our thinking stays sharp. Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that we've barely scratched the surface of confirmation bias.

But this is as SIMPLE as while you are HOLDING a BELIEF or an ASSUMPTION that some 'thing' is true, then you will look for, even unconsciously, and "find" 'things' that confirm the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION.

This is just part of the process of the 'belief-system' and how it works.

That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.

[Flannel Jesus]

That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.

The entire field of medical science was only capable of making meaningful advancements towards finding consistently effective treatments after they figured out techniques to fight against confirmation bias. I think it's a pretty big deal.

[Agent Smith]

That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.

The entire field of medical science was only capable of making meaningful advancements towards finding consistently effective treatments after they figured out techniques to fight against confirmation bias. I think it's a pretty big deal.

I'm not aware of any instances of confirmation bias in medical research although I can see how that may happen. What I mean to say is real steaks are so much better than imagined steaks.