Confirmation Bias

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade---

I could be mistaken, but I believe some good examples of CB would be your insistence on the widespread existence of "Mr D" (the original definition), and also your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge the full dictionary definition of "lie."

I agree...you could be mistaken. Certainly you are mistaken to assume that I have completely and utterly refused to acknowledge the full dictionary definition of "lie". In fact, if you recall correctly, I used some of your favored connotations in reference to things you have said. ;-)

Let's see if conformation bias prevents you from accepting that reality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't recall you ever providing any salient or specific examples, Wade. But then that's what I've come to expect with you.

Anyways, I guess you are finally caving in and admitting that the Church hasn't been entirely honest?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

One of the main impediments to a fruitful discussions is divergent understandings and interpreted meanings of basic concepts.

Such appears to be the case on this thread with the meaning of the term "confirmation bias".

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition:

"[b]whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence

."

From what little I have been able to read online on the subject, this definition seems to fit how psychologists and epistemologist have defined it--though some draw a distinction between confirmation bias and disconformation bias.

Can we agree on this definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[/quote]

I don't agree on the definition because you've left out the context. What you've kept here could almost support your example of a hot stove although that's obviously not valid.

[Gadianton]

It may be of interest to note that the study that Shermer uses in his SA article (Westen, 2006), does not, itself, mention the term "confirmation bias". Rather, Westen speaks of "motivated reasoning" and "hot cognitions".

Is there a meaningful difference between these terms?

Here is an abstract of an article on "Motivated Reasoning" by Ziva Kunda, who is viewed as the originator of the term:

It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes–that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions. These ideas can account for a wide variety of research concerned with motivated reasoning.

The difference that I see is "confirmation bias" has more to do with how one uses information to confirm an existing favorable conclusion, whereas "motivated reasoning" has more to do with how one uses information to establish a favored conclusion. The former is designed to maintain, whereas the later is designed to create, formulate, or derive.

I think this distinction is important when determining not only the relevance of Westen's study to Shermer's article, but which, if either notion, applies in a given situation. What one may call "confirmation bias", may actually be "motivated reasoning", and vice versa.

More important still, I think it well advised for all of us to more fully educate ourselves on these subjects prior to adding them to our arsenal of criticism or as a knee-jerk means of dismissing the opposition in lieu of a reasoned counter-argument.

There is an excellent article (blog) that touches on all of this, written by "Chris", who is said to be a cognitive scientist. It is titled: "Motivated Reasoning 1: Hot Cognitions.

Of particular interest to me, was Chris' description of "motivated Reasoning" or "Hot Cognitions" as: "motivated reasoning is in fact our default mode of reasoning; the one that we revert to when we are threatened, when our cognitive resources are limited, or when we aren't highly motivated to make an effortful attempt to come to the objectively 'right' answer. Interestingly, under this theory, motivated reasoning is automatic, relatively effortless, and likely occurs below the level of awareness."

What is here being described by Chris as "motivated reasoning", is in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) called "automatic thoughts" and "Core beliefs". These automatic thoughts are deemed to have a multi-lateral influencial relationship with emotions (automatic thoughts can be charged with what Chris calls emotional valence, and emotions can be activated by automatic thoughts). So, to me, it is not coincedental that Westen found that these "automatic thoughts" or "motivated reasoning" takes place in the centers of the brain commonly associated with emotions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

One of the main impediments to a fruitful discussions is divergent understandings and interpreted meanings of basic concepts.

Such appears to be the case on this thread with the meaning of the term "confirmation bias".

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition:

"[b]whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence

."

From what little I have been able to read online on the subject, this definition seems to fit how psychologists and epistemologist have defined it--though some draw a distinction between confirmation bias and disconformation bias.

Can we agree on this definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't agree on the definition because you've left out the context. What you've kept here could almost support your example of a hot stove although that's obviously not valid.

What context do you require before you will accept SHERMER'S definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dartagnan]

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition: “…whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence.”

Wade you are forgetting the next sentence, which is what I tried to highlight in my previous post. Confirmation bias happens automatically without any awareness of it. Here is the next sentence you’re ignoring:

“Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.”(emphasis mine)

Since it is unconscious, it means nobody in CB mode can be guilty of intentional deception – which I find interesting. They really do believe what they are saying, and are not willfully misleading their audience because they refuse to acknowledge that what they are saying is misleading in the first place.

Now what you try to categorize as examples of CB are acts of “considering” and reasoning, but Shermer’s definition requires an absence of both. Thus, the detailed conscious political procedure which led to the end of slavery, is not a valid example of CB. Contemplating different travel routes is not an example of CB. Learning not to get burned twice from a hot stove is not an example of CB. While emotions may be involved on one level or another, none of these examples are emotion-driven and unconscious acts.

Incidentally, I was thinking a lot about this today in the car. An example of purely emotional dependence in decision making, is like telling investigators to go pray about it and then ask them how they “felt.” You never hear missionaries share the message and then end the discussion by exhorting the prospective convert to “think” about it. Instead, they are encouraged to “pray” about it. An entire lesson is dedicated to explaining how this is how God gives answers - not through personal study/investigation and reasoning but by throwing your hands up and leaving it all up to an emotion to tell you if it is all true. This is why I think it is ironic that we call prospective converts “investigators.”

The vast majority of converts couldn’t tell you diddly squat about 80% of the stuff discussed on apologetic forums, because they are encouraged not to investigate. They are not encouraged to read up on the controversial topics because the LDS powers that be have already decided for them, that anything in this category is “anti” and satan inspired. Therefore, the end justifies the means – make sure you do everything in your power to keep such information out of their hands. Why? Because that requires serious thinking and flipping the “on switch” in the brain’s reasoning dept. They are not encouraged to hear both sides. They are strongly dissuaded from any such activity because it is the kind of thing that causes more confirmation bias to kick in for the missionaries, and when missionaries and LDS apologists are running amuck in CB mode they end up looking ridiculous and it drives away those who would otherwise be interested in baptism - had they heard about none of the controversial matters.

[_rcrocket]

Incidentally, I was thinking a lot about this today in the car. An example of purely emotional dependence in decision making, is like telling investigators to go pray about it and then ask them how they “felt.” You never hear missionaries share the message and then end the discussion by exhorting the prospective convert to “think” about it. Instead, they are encouraged to “pray” about it. An entire lesson is dedicated to explaining how this is how God gives answers - not through personal study/investigation and reasoning but by throwing your hands up and leaving it all up to an emotion to tell you if it is all true. This is why I think it is ironic that we call prospective converts “investigators.”

The vast majority of converts couldn’t tell you diddly squat about 80% of the stuff discussed on apologetic forums, because they are encouraged not to investigate. They are not encouraged to read up on the controversial topics because the LDS powers that be have already decided for them, that anything in this category is “anti” and satan inspired. Therefore, the end justifies the means – make sure you do everything in your power to keep such information out of their hands. Why? Because that requires serious thinking and flipping the “on switch” in the brain’s reasoning dept. They are not encouraged to hear both sides. They are strongly dissuaded from any such activity because it is the kind of thing that causes more confirmation bias to kick in for the missionaries, and when missionaries and LDS apologists are running amuck in CB mode they end up looking ridiculous and it drives away those who would otherwise be interested in baptism - had they heard about none of the controversial matters.

Or, the above could be a lot of babble.

Consider John 16:7. Jesus tells his disciples that he cannot remain on the earth because His presence inteferes with their getting to know truth throught he Spirit.

Regarding the Spirit, "[H]e will guide you to all truth . . . ."

Given that scriptural model, the missionaries have no choice but to teach prospective converts that truth comes not from looking on the Internet but receiving the inspiration from the Spirit. I could say a lot more on this subject and offer personal experiences, but pearls before swine etc. Not necessarily referring to you but it is not wise to put personal anedotal information out to be mocked.

Are you so far gone from belief in basic Christianity that you jettison the notion that real truth comes from the Spirit?

P

[_dartagnan]

Consider John 16:7. Jesus tells his disciples that he cannot remain on the earth because His presence inteferes with their getting to know truth throught he Spirit.

And spirit is matter, and for all we know the spirit of God makes its presence somewhere in the quantum mechanics of flickering photons in our brain’s reasoning dept. There is not enough information in the New Testament that would justify the LDS model of conversion to be called the “biblical” model.

Teaching about a spirit of truth is one thing, but I see nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or any apostle encourages prospective converts to abandon all reasoning and rely strictly on emotions for their life-changing decisions. Paul certainly didn’t use this method in the synagogues or with King Agrippa. Why not? Why was he wasting so much time “reasoning” with them for months? Why did Jesus try to reason with the pharisees so often? Why didn't he just go tell them to pray about it?

Now the Pauline conversion experience was something else, but LDS investigators are told not to expect that – and why not if it is truly the “biblical model? They are just supposed to expect some kind of feeling, and when questioned in follow-up discussions, missionaries try to convince the “investigator” that any “good” feeling they might have felt, was God’s way of telling them Mormonism is true. The so-called “investigation” can be summed up with reading a handful of selected passages from the Book of Mormon and a prayer. That’s it. In the second discussion the missionaries are told to commit the investigator to be baptized. This is before he or she hears anything about tithing, the apostasy, temple ordinances et cetera. So once a commitment is made, it makes it easier for missionaries to respond to later concerns in subsequent discussions. They can say, “but your concerns don’t really matter because you already agreed a week ago that God told you the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore Joseph Smith was a prophet, and therefore the Church is true, and therefore all of its teachings are from God.”
This is geared towards shutting down any attempt at reasoning on any level. The entire missionary experience is – if the Elders are lucky – emotionally based and emotionally decided.

[_wenglund]

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition: “…whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence.”

Wade you are forgetting the next sentence, which is what I tried to highlight in my previous post. Confirmation bias happens automatically without any awareness of it. Here is the next sentence you’re ignoring:

“Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.”(emphasis mine)

Since it is unconscious, it means nobody in CB mode can be guilty of intentional deception – which I find interesting. They really do believe what they are saying, and are not willfully misleading their audience because they refuse to acknowledge that what they are saying is misleading in the first place.

Now what you try to categorize as examples of CB are acts of “considering” and reasoning, but Shermer’s definition requires an absence of both. Thus, the detailed conscious political procedure which led to the end of slavery, is not a valid example of CB. Contemplating different travel routes is not an example of CB. Learning not to get burned twice from a hot stove is not an example of CB. While emotions may be involved on one level or another, none of these examples are emotion-driven and unconscious acts.

Incidentally, I was thinking a lot about this today in the car. An example of purely emotional dependence in decision making, is like telling investigators to go pray about it and then ask them how they “felt.” You never hear missionaries share the message and then end the discussion by exhorting the prospective convert to “think” about it. Instead, they are encouraged to “pray” about it. An entire lesson is dedicated to explaining how this is how God gives answers - not through personal study/investigation and reasoning but by throwing your hands up and leaving it all up to an emotion to tell you if it is all true. This is why I think it is ironic that we call prospective converts “investigators.”

The vast majority of converts couldn’t tell you diddly squat about 80% of the stuff discussed on apologetic forums, because they are encouraged not to investigate. They are not encouraged to read up on the controversial topics because the LDS powers that be have already decided for them, that anything in this category is “anti” and satan inspired. Therefore, the end justifies the means – make sure you do everything in your power to keep such information out of their hands. Why? Because that requires serious thinking and flipping the “on switch” in the brain’s reasoning dept. They are not encouraged to hear both sides. They are strongly dissuaded from any such activity because it is the kind of thing that causes more confirmation bias to kick in for the missionaries, and when missionaries and LDS apologists are running amuck in CB mode they end up looking ridiculous and it drives away those who would otherwise be interested in baptism - had they heard about none of the controversial matters.

Would I be incorrect to conclude that you do not accept SHERMERS definition as I quoted it?

Either way, you are mistaken to assume that "motivated reasoning" (which is what Westen's study was about), or even "confirmation bias" is about "purely emotional dependence in decision making". While emotions are involved, so are automatic thoughts and pre-establish beliefs and motives. In each of these cases, reasoning was a precursor. Perhaps it would be wise for you to read the article by Chris that I linked to above. It would position you much better to speak from a standpoint of informedness, rather than simply and ironically emoting. ;-)

As for your example, I can't speak to what kind of missionary experience you may have had, nor can I speak for all missionaries, but I tended to end my discussions as a missionary with "read, study, and pray", rather than just "pray".

And, for those who correctly understand the true nature of prayer, it is intended to be a learning and reasoning experience, and not just a purely emotional exercise. The mind should be as much involved in the process as the heart.

But, I can accept that your experience and understanding may be different.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

One of the main impediments to a fruitful discussions is divergent understandings and interpreted meanings of basic concepts.

Such appears to be the case on this thread with the meaning of the term "confirmation bias".

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition:

"[b]whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence

."

From what little I have been able to read online on the subject, this definition seems to fit how psychologists and epistemologist have defined it--though some draw a distinction between confirmation bias and disconformation bias.

Can we agree on this definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't agree on the definition because you've left out the context. What you've kept here could almost support your example of a hot stove although that's obviously not valid.

What context do you require before you will accept SHERMER'S definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just the context that was in the link you took your excerpt from would be fine for me.

[_beastie]

For example, if I have learned by sad experience, and to a great degree of confidence, that if I put my bear hand in a fire then I will get burn't, is it a problem to cease being skeptical about whether the fire will burn me or not? Is it a problem to view various actions with fire as confirming that bias--including even in relation to instances that seem to defy my bias, such as with fire-walkers?

To me, I think "confirmation bias" is, for the most part, a pragmatic mechanism. It prevents us from having to reinvent the epistemic wheel over and over again. It helps us avoid the unnecessary and arduous task of rethinking things to the nth-degree, particularly in instances where split-second decisions are required.

Interestingly, your argument demonstrates confirmation bias. Your predetermined conclusion is that confirmation bias is pragmatic, not problematic. You offered one example that was designed to support your conclusion. You then seem to draw a hasty generalization from that one example.

Why not this example:

In the ancestral environment, individual A has concluded, based on repeated personal experience, that brightly colored berries hanging on bushes are delicious and safe to eat. Individual A observes individual B eat some brightly colored berries on a bush and becoming violently ill. Individual A disregards the contradictory evidence, eats berries, and also becomes very ill.

Any time human beings engage in fallacious reasoning we risk making error. The error may be positive, as in believing something that is not correct, or negative, which is not believing something that is correct. Some of that same fallacious reasoning may lead us to make decisions that either are helpful or harmful (see fallacy of fallacy – by the way, I wanted your website because I thought surely you would have discussed confirmation bias there and it would help me understand your viewpoint, but I could not see any section that seemed to address it). So just the fact that sometimes confirmation bias leads us to make a decision that is beneficial (as in your fire example) does not necessarily indicate that the decision was not based on fallacious reasoning.

I am certain that there is an explanation for why human beings are universally prone to confirmation bias that would indicate that it was beneficial to our ancestors for some reason – perhaps to expedite quick action, as you mentioned. But that does not mean that confirmation bias is not a flaw in reasoning.

Certainly there are times when the evidence supporting a conclusion is so overwhelming that it is reasonable to be skeptical of contradictory evidence. That is why I am always suspicious of claims such as horse bones being found in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon era, for example. The burden of proof shifts to the individual making the unusual claim. This does not mean that the unusual claim is either necessarily false or true.

Whether or not any given individual wishes to be aware of confirmation bias and the flaw it introduces into reasoning is dependent upon the priorities of the individual, of course.