Confirmation Bias

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Confirmation Bias

Post by _beastie »

I was a bit surprised to read, on my last foray into MAD (come here so I can kick you Scratch) that two of the most vocal LDS defenders - Juliann and Nighthawke - were apparently previously unexposed to the idea of confirmation bias. I think it's a subject we all can learn from, and hopefully, use to monitor our own knee jerkery.

Here's an interesting essay from Michael Shermer, whom I adore:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm? ... 414B7F0162

What is particularly intriguing is the discovery that the portion of the brain involved in confirmation bias is completely unrelated to the reasoning portion of our brain:

During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.

The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.


Boy, that explains a lot about internet debates!! ;)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

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"?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I guess it would depend on what sort of documentary evidence you have. If it could be definitely demonstrated to be completely outside the realm of the power of the brain to create, and documented as to be impossible to have occurred per any sort of naturalist explanation, then that would be astounding. (and would be the only one I'd heard of yet)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

beastie wrote:I guess it would depend on what sort of documentary evidence you have. If it could be definitely demonstrated to be completely outside the realm of the power of the brain to create, and documented as to be impossible to have occurred per any sort of naturalist explanation, then that would be astounding. (and would be the only one I'd heard of yet)


I'll email it to you if you like, but not through PM. I've emailed it to skeptics and none have an answer. The common answer I get is "astonishing", followed by scratching heads.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Sure - I'll PM my email.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Confirmation Bias

Post by _MormonMendacity »

Very interesting. Thanks for the information, both of you!
Ray A wrote:
Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical.

It would be refreshing to see that kind of approach BY more Mormon scholars about outlandish claims.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Bryan Inks
_Emeritus
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by _Bryan Inks »

Ray A wrote:
beastie wrote:I guess it would depend on what sort of documentary evidence you have. If it could be definitely demonstrated to be completely outside the realm of the power of the brain to create, and documented as to be impossible to have occurred per any sort of naturalist explanation, then that would be astounding. (and would be the only one I'd heard of yet)


I'll email it to you if you like, but not through PM. I've emailed it to skeptics and none have an answer. The common answer I get is "astonishing", followed by scratching heads.


I'd be interested in this as well, being a student of the metaphysical.

If you would be so kind, scerathug@hotmail.com
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

beastie wrote:I guess it would depend on what sort of documentary evidence you have. If it could be definitely demonstrated to be completely outside the realm of the power of the brain to create, and documented as to be impossible to have occurred per any sort of naturalist explanation, then that would be astounding. (and would be the only one I'd heard of yet)


Almost all scientific breakthroughs happened this way. The discovery of quantum physics, relativity, superconductors, etc, all happened because something suddenly stopped acting like it SHOULD have. Then we needed new ways to describe this something, and we altered the laws of physics to fit the evidence.

That's one major failing point of most amateur scientists (namely, those who post on message boards like this [myself included]). People see something that doesn't fit in science, and assume it cannot be. The real answer is, we haven't found the answer YET. Eventually, with enough testing, we can find out the reasons for anything. Eventually.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

keene wrote:That's one major failing point of most amateur scientists (namely, those who post on message boards like this [myself included]). People see something that doesn't fit in science, and assume it cannot be. The real answer is, we haven't found the answer YET. Eventually, with enough testing, we can find out the reasons for anything. Eventually.


I completely agree, keene.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Keene,

That would make sense except for the fact that Ray specified it could not be lab duplicated. How can it then be tested?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply