Confirmation Bias

[_Mister Scratch]

Does anyone else here find it amusing that Wade has hopped right onto the CB bandwagon due to the fact that he thinks he can use it as a cudgel to bash critics of the Church? Personally, I find it hilarious. It seems his whole existence is oriented around looking for theories he can distort in the service of defending his "most precious and dear" Church. Almost as hilarious as this is the fact that he has totally abandoned his threads on whether the Church lied, or whether Mr D exists, or using CBT to "cure" exmos, or whether or not RfM is a place where "venting" occurs, etc., etc. It seems Wade's arguments have a bad habit of falling by the wayside. I'll keep a close eye on my watch for this one, too.

[_beastie]

Not according to evolutionary biology. The tribal instinct is deeply rooted in the instinctual desire to advance one's genes over anybody else's. Since tribal groups are genetically similar, instinct/biology/genetics/evolution teaches them to attempt to triumph uber alles.

Of course. That is why I stated that whether or not confirmation bias is problematic depends upon one’s priorities.

Confirmation bias, as well as other instincts such as tribal loyalties, makes sense in terms of inducing behavior that resulted in a higher chance of reproduction and survival. But that does not necessarily mean that CB is compatible with two different issues:

1 – our current modern environment
2 – whether or not CB leads to flawed reasoning that potentially leads humans to believe things that are not correct in terms of accurately portraying external reality

When thinking about human instincts, I have found it important to keep those traits in the context of the ancestral environment. Our modern environment progressed, technologically and socially, at a far faster pace than biological evolution has kept up. So while our instincts may have served our ancestors well in terms of reproduction and survival, the very same behaviors those instincts induce may no longer serve us well. Take, for example, tribal loyalties and the instinct to portray the “other” as less worthy. It may have served our ancestors well to bash the “other” over the heads with clubs in order to take their resources, but it doesn’t serve us well when we can potentially use nuclear weapons instead of clubs. Nor does it make sense to demonize the other when we’re all interdependent in a global market.

Even aside from the fact that our modern environment may not be compatible with the demonstration of our ancient instincts, (which is the pragmatic argument), the alternative question has to do with whether or not CB or tribal loyalty provides an accurate pictures of external reality. No matter how we are tempted to characterize the “other”, reality is that they are human beings more similar to us than not. They love their families. They want to do well by their communities. They value morality. So demonizing the ‘other’ may provide a convenient rationalization for behavior that our ancestors may have found advantageous to their own reproduction and survival, but it doesn’t provide an accurate picture of external reality. In fact, the “other” is probably saying the same nasty things about your own tribe.

Since we’re mainly talking about confirmation bias, I’ll demonstrate it through tribal instincts. One way that we maintain the myth that the “other” is less worthy is by being very selective in the information our brains process. We notice the good behavior of our own tribe and emphasize it, while ignoring the same good behavior in the other. We minimize or rationalize the bad behavior of our own tribe while emphasizing the bad behavior of the other, and using it to completely characterize their nature.

Finally, one last point: truth, that is, beliefs or statements that accurately represent external reality, has nothing to fear by discarding confirmation bias.

[_beastie]

Shermer's article was about "confirmation bias", whereas the study upon which his article was based was about "motivated reasoning".

To your minds, are these terms synonyms?

If not, what differences do you see between them, and do you see those differences as problematic in terms of Shermer's use of a study on "motivated reasoning" to support his point about "conformation bias"? (In other owrds, did Shermer pull a few threads out of Westen's rug, thereby unraveling Westen's rug?) ;-)

You're going to have to develop your theory with a bit more substance in order for it to look like anything other than an attempt to apply salve to your wounded ego.

For example, did Shermer (who didn't make up the term to begin with nor its definition) utilize citations with embedded phrases that relied on one specific definition, while omitting that he had altered some of the basic structure behind those definitions?

[_beastie]

Does anyone else here find it amusing that Wade has hopped right onto the CB bandwagon due to the fact that he thinks he can use it as a cudgel to bash critics of the Church? Personally, I find it hilarious. It seems his whole existence is oriented around looking for theories he can distort in the service of defending his "most precious and dear" Church. Almost as hilarious as this is the fact that he has totally abandoned his threads on whether the Church lied, or whether Mr D exists, or using CBT to "cure" exmos, or whether or not RfM is a place where "venting" occurs, etc., etc. It seems Wade's arguments have a bad habit of falling by the wayside. I'll keep a close eye on my watch for this one, too.

I'm not sure I understand his motives at all. It really is extraordinary to see someone suggesting that confirmation bias is not problematic in that it leads human beings to ignore or distort pertinent information.

Certainly, for example, missionaries hope that potential converts living in areas of the world in which the LDS church is viewed as subversive can rise above their own confirmation bias in order to at least "hear" their message.

[_wenglund]

Shermer's article was about "confirmation bias", whereas the study upon which his article was based was about "motivated reasoning".

To your minds, are these terms synonyms?

If not, what differences do you see between them, and do you see those differences as problematic in terms of Shermer's use of a study on "motivated reasoning" to support his point about "conformation bias"? (In other owrds, did Shermer pull a few threads out of Westen's rug, thereby unraveling Westen's rug?) ;-)

You're going to have to develop your theory with a bit more substance in order for it to look like anything other than an attempt to apply salve to your wounded ego.

For example, did Shermer (who didn't make up the term to begin with nor its definition) utilize citations with embedded phrases that relied on one specific definition, while omitting that he had altered some of the basic structure behind those definitions?

Were you, at some point, going to respond to my key question? Here it is again just in case you missed it:

Shermer's article was about "confirmation bias", whereas the study upon which his article was based was about "motivated reasoning". To your minds, are these terms synonyms?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dartagnan]

Wade, whenever you get around to it, I would like for you to back up your claim that in LDS thought, prayer and reasoning go hand in hand. You kinda bailed out on that one and I am only pushing you on it because you asserted this was such an obvious thing, implying I know nothing about LDS thought.

Shermer's article was about "confirmation bias", whereas the study upon which his article was based was about "motivated reasoning". To your minds, are these terms synonyms

Are you suggesting Shermer completely misapplied the research? The study explicitly says that it uses terminology "motivated reasoning" only because it is the most common terminology, and it also said that it is very much related to confirmatory bias.

Also, why did you divert to an article written in 1990 and one which was based on research from the 80's, when Westen's work is cutting edge stuff from just a couple of years ago? You make it sound like Kunda disagreed with Westen's research when he wouldn't even be aware of for another 14 years.

[_wenglund]

Wade, whenever you get around to it, I would like for you to back up your claim that in LDS thought, prayer and reasoning go hand in hand. You kinda bailed out on that one and I am only pushing you on it because you asserted this was such an obvious thing, implying I know nothing about LDS thought.

Since this is way off-topic (which is why I did not pursue it previously--not to be confused with "bailing out"), let me just point you to a couple of scriptures: Alma 32:26-43, Moroni 10:1-7

Shermer's article was about "confirmation bias", whereas the study upon which his article was based was about "motivated reasoning". To your minds, are these terms synonyms?

Are you suggesting Shermer completely misapplied the research?

If you look very closely you will see that there is a question mark at the end of the last sentence. This means that I am asking a question, and not making a suggestion. And, if you look at the beginning of my post you will see that it is addressed to you and Beastie and Lucretia. So, the word "your" in my question means I am asking the question to you et. al., and not to myself. So, clearly, I am not suggesting a thing.

The study explicitly says that it uses terminology "motivated reasoning" only because it is the most common terminology, and it also said that it is very much related to confirmatory bias.

But, it only mentions it once in the "discussion" section of the paper, and it doesn't explain in what way it is related. Do you happen to know?

Also, why did you divert to an article written in 1990 and one which was based on research from the 80's, when Westen's work is cutting edge stuff from just a couple of years ago?

Actually, I mentioned a recent article by Chris, a Cognitive scientist, and quoted his definition of "motivated reasoning", which he got from the founder of the term (Kunda). That quote engender a question from Beastie, which I answered using Kunda's own words.

You make it sound like Kunda disagreed with Westen's research when he wouldn't even be aware of for another 14 years.

Kunda is actually a she, not a he, and nothing I have said could reasonably suggest that I thought Kunda was disagreeing with Westen's research. Chris' recent article certainly does challenge both Shermer and Westen. See: HERE and HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Does anyone else here find it amusing that Wade has hopped right onto the CB bandwagon due to the fact that he thinks he can use it as a cudgel to bash critics of the Church? Personally, I find it hilarious. It seems his whole existence is oriented around looking for theories he can distort in the service of defending his "most precious and dear" Church. Almost as hilarious as this is the fact that he has totally abandoned his threads on whether the Church lied, or whether Mr D exists, or using CBT to "cure" exmos, or whether or not RfM is a place where "venting" occurs, etc., etc. It seems Wade's arguments have a bad habit of falling by the wayside. I'll keep a close eye on my watch for this one, too.

This is wonderfully introspective of you, Scratch. But, do you think it wise to be so hard on yourself?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

Shermer is interesting because, If I recall correctly, he was once a fundamentalist Christian. I read the article and noted this:

In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don't have a problem with science, and I understand the need for empirical evidence before accepting something. But what happens when you experience something, contrary to the known laws of physics, that cannot be "lab duplicated", and you have documentary evidence it happened? I guess I'm getting into metaphysics here. Can you legitimately say, "it could not have happened"?

It depends on how extraordinary the experience was. Perhaps we cannot say definitively, but we can, I think, attach probabilities or magnitude of likelihood to them.

I am prepared to accept there may be some things we cannot grasp at the moment (although I am confident that there are natural explanations for them), but I cannot think of many examples of supernatural experiences off the top of my head that I would give much credence to.

In the end, I don't care too much what you, or anyone, claims you saw, heard, or felt. Only do not use it as a pretext to impose a set of strange, silly, dogmatic, or unreasonable beliefs on me or anyone else. I'll fight for your right to have supernatural beliefs or experiences (though I may think them silly), but I'll fight for my right to not be held accountable for them.

[_Mephitus]

It depends on how extraordinary the experience was. Perhaps we cannot say definitively, but we can, I think, attach probabilities or magnitude of likelihood to them.

I am prepared to accept there may be some things we cannot grasp at the moment (although I am confident that there are natural explanations for them), but I cannot think of many examples of supernatural experiences off the top of my head that I would give much credence to.

In the end, I don't care too much what you, or anyone, claims you saw, heard, or felt. Only do not use it as a pretext to impose a set of strange, silly, dogmatic, or unreasonable beliefs on me or anyone else. I'll fight for your right to have supernatural beliefs or experiences (though I may think them silly), but I'll fight for my right to not be held accountable for them.

I practice area's that are considered "occult". And have multiple supernatural experiences on a regular basis now. They are confirmed, documented, and repeated by myself and a friend of mine(my teacher of sorts). So i know that the supernatural on some level exists. Much of what I've seen though tends me to shy away from the VAST majority of what people think of as supernatural effectives. Such as prayer or nearly the entirety of christianic philosphy on controlling the supernatural. Much of those claims are much more firmly rooted in the relm of thought controll and self hypnosis. With even a very small amount of research into self hypnosis,(or group thought controll methods) one can see everything that the church does to use these methods to its own ends of empowerment. Its very effective i must say.