Confirmation Bias

[_truth dancer]

I think there are a lot of things that happen for which we do not have an understanding. I think we are just beginning to understand some basic aspects of our universe.

Just think what we will know in another few thousand years or so... :-)

Because we don't understand something doesn't mean it is supernatural or magical, it just means we don't understand it yet.

I think we get into trouble when we start making up stories to have things make sense in an archaic paradigm, rather than expanding the paradigm.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Kevin Graham]

I found it interesting that they have captured MRIs of the brain as the process of CB unfolds. The explanation is quite similar to that in the roll of apostate or believer. When disconfirmatory evidence is presented, CB goes into overdrive and the evidence is either ignored or reinterpreted, and it is driven purely by emotion, not rational thought. The disconfirmatory evidences causes negative feelings so the mind runs to the emotion dept. for a cure for the problem. The reward is an immediate return to those good feelings of confirmatory bias - usually interpreted as the "spirit of truth."

This all makes sense. I see this all the time especially from people like Greg, Hammer, Nightawke and Juliann. Changing the subject, straw man arguments, and a slew of other fallacies are used to aid the confirmatory bias. Anything to take focus off the disconfirmatory evidences.

Rewards for being skeptical?

Bah!

Not in the LDS arena. Just look at what happened to me. I was perhaps the first apologist to take a serious inward critical look at LDS apologetics and I was ousted before I was properly heard.

Juliann and Nighthawke are classic cases of confirmatory bias, which is why they ignore it. If Juliann wants to dabble into sociology and psychology, then she is preparing LDS apologetics for yet another obstacle to hurdle. This is why I started the "converts role" thread; to demonstrate that the "research" is far more damaging to the LDS position than the ex-LDS position.

[_wenglund]

I found it interesting that they have captured MRIs of the brain as the process of CB unfolds. The explanation is quite similar to that in the roll of apostate or believer. When disconfirmatory evidence is presented, CB goes into overdrive and the evidence is either ignored or reinterpreted, and it is driven purely by emotion, not rational thought. The disconfirmatory evidences causes negative feelings so the mind runs to the emotion dept. for a cure for the problem. The reward is an immediate return to those good feelings of confirmatory bias - usually interpreted as the "spirit of truth."

This all makes sense. I see this all the time especially from people like Greg, Hammer, Nightawke and Juliann. Changing the subject, straw man arguments, and a slew of other fallacies are used to aid the confirmatory bias. Anything to take focus off the disconfirmatory evidences.

Rewards for being skeptical?

Bah!

Not in the LDS arena. Just look at what happened to me. I was perhaps the first apologist to take a serious inward critical look at LDS apologetics and I was ousted before I was properly heard.

Juliann and Nighthawke are classic cases of confirmatory bias, which is why they ignore it. If Juliann wants to dabble into sociology and psychology, then she is preparing LDS apologetics for yet another obstacle to hurdle. This is why I started the "converts role" thread; to demonstrate that the "research" is far more damaging to the LDS position than the ex-LDS position.

Could your comments above be a function of your own "conformation bias" going into "overdrive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

On average, do you consider "confirmation bias" to be problematic or pragmantic?

Logically, in terms beliefs and knowledge, doesn't skepticism tend to decrease as confidence increases?

And, as confidence increases, doesn't the tendency for "conformation bias" increase as well?

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 unecessary and arduous task of rethinking things to the nth-degree, particularly in instances where split-second decisions are required.

The point being, "confirmation bias" can be a good thing, and thus it may not be in anyone's best interest to necessarily view it as a means of summarily dismissing (in an ironically "confirmation biased" way) opposing points of view.

Is there a point at which "confirmation bias" may be problematic?

I certainly think so.

How does one determine at what point a given "confirmation bias" stops being pragmatic and starts to be problematic?

That, to me, is the real and important question.

Were I to venture an hypothesis, I would suggest that the gage might be whether a given "confirmation bias" lends itself to valued personal development and epistemic growth, or not. When it does lend to development and growth, it may be pragmatic, and when it does the opposite, then it may be problematic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

Confirmation bias is normally understood as the process that takes place when human beings are accessing information about a subject (your hand-in-fire example doesn't strike me as an example of confirmation bias at all, but rather learning from experience), and when being presented with information that contradicts one's pre-existing beliefs, the subject somehow ignores, minimizes, or plain "can't hear" the contradictory information.

It is problematic, because it prevents human beings from considering all information that may need to be considered before drawing conclusions.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Could your comments above be a function of your own "conformation bias" going into "overdrive"?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just to be sure you are clear, it's "confirmation bias," not "conformation bias." It could make a difference.

I didn't notice anyone so far declaring themselves to be free of confirmation bias. Maybe you'd like to be the first?

Edit: Never mind. Now I see your second post, it appears you've got it all worked out to your satisfaction.

[_Who Knows]

Additionally, confirmation bias is typically thought of as a 'statistical error':

it represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. (courtesy of wikipedia)

Whether or not the person is 'better off' for the error, it's still an error.

[_dartagnan]

On average, do you consider "confirmation bias" to be problematic or pragmantic?

What the hell is pragmantic? Do you really want to argue that errors that lead to more errors are not “on average” problematic? If you like living in fantasy land, and truth be damned, then I guess it wouldn’t seem problematic to you.

And, as confidence increases, doesn't the tendency for "conformation bias" increase as well?

Depends on the person and how willing he/she is to remain self-critical. Just because you are confident about something doesn’t change the fact that it is a logical error to appeal to emotions and not facts.

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?

The decision to avoid being burned is a decision based on facts – you know what happens when flesh meets flame - not pure emotion. An emotional reaction to being burned is a consequence of the act, not its cause. You apparently do not understand what confirmation bias is.

The point being, "confirmation bias" can be a good thing

And so can making a wrong turn if a planned route happens to be blocked by a fallen tree. But that doesn’t change the fact that an error was made.

thus it may not be in anyone's best interest to necessarily view it as a means of summarily dismissing (in an ironically "confirmation biased" way) opposing points of view.

So it is wrong to insist bad turns normally lead to unfortunate ends, since it is not impossible that it could at times work out for the best.

Wow.

How does one determine at what point a given "confirmation bias" stops being pragmatic and starts to be problematic?

As a rule, any type of inference error that naturally leads to statistical errors should be considered problematic. But I realize these types of errors are second nature to many current LDS apologists, hence your need to make it seem OK and “pragmantic.”

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Confirmation bias is normally understood as the process that takes place when human beings are accessing information about a subject (your hand-in-fire example doesn't strike me as an example of confirmation bias at all, but rather learning from experience), and when being presented with information that contradicts one's pre-existing beliefs, the subject somehow ignores, minimizes, or plain "can't hear" the contradictory information.

It is problematic, because it prevents human beings from considering all information that may need to be considered before drawing conclusions.

I personally can't speak authoritatively to what "confirmation bias" is "normally understood" to mean or what all it may be in reference to. I can only speak to my understanding of it. But, evidently you view yourself as in a position to speak authoritatively Old Testament the "normal" understanding. Perhaps, then, you might be able to answer why it is called "confirmation bias" if it consists solely of rejecting de-confirming or contradictory information, rather than also consisting of a bias towards confirming information. Shouldn't it be called "de-confirmation bias"?

Also, how can it be a bias absent previously drawn concludions?

I ask because I am trying to understand the distinction you drew between "learning by experience" and "confirmation bias" and why I should accept your dismissal of my "conflicting information" (i.e. my hand-in-fire example).

Assuming, however, that you are correct, is there some objective standard for determining the set of "all information that may need to be considered before drawing conclusions"? In other words, to your way of thinking, who or what determines whether something is "confirmation bias" or not?

I ask because one man's perspective and experience may be another man's "confirmation bias". For example, one man may, through his knowledge of physics and astronomy, conclude that extra-terrestrial alien visitations to earth are improbable at best, and likely not possible, and thus may ignore or dismiss conflicting information like eye-witness testimonies of people claiming alien sightings and abductions. Whereas, another man may firmly believe he has seen and was abducted by aliens (i.e. he believes he experienced it), and figures from what he observed that the aliens were far advanced in their technology such that they more fully understood the laws of physics and could legitimately or seemingly defy our understanding of the laws of physics, and thus he may dismiss or ignore the conflicting information like our current scientific understanding. Both men have ignored and dismissed conflicting information. Are either or both men guilty of "confirmation bias"? If so, why? If not, why? And, in what way is it "problematic" to either men?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

On average, do you consider "confirmation bias" to be problematic or pragmantic?

What the hell is pragmantic? Do you really want to argue that errors that lead to more errors are not “on average” problematic? If you like living in fantasy land, and truth be damned, then I guess it wouldn’t seem problematic to you.

I note the irony of how quickly you dismissed, as "fantasy", my conflicting information.

And, as confidence increases, doesn't the tendency for "conformation bias" increase as well?

Depends on the person and how willing he/she is to remain self-critical. Just because you are confident about something doesn’t change the fact that it is a logical error to appeal to emotions and not facts.

I suppose it also depends upon what one understands "confirmation bias" to mean.

Slavery/Racism was based on reasoning (economics and utilitarianism). It took an appeal to emotion (civil war, and the civil rights movement) to change things. Thank heaven for what you might uninformedly call a "logical error".

I mention this by way of suggesting that not everyone sees it as preferred to let reason, alone, be the final arbitor of thoughts and choices. Some of us believe the head without the heart is as undesirable and incapable of full and enriched life as the heart without the head. We view a balance between the two as preferred.

To each their own.

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?

The decision to avoid being burned is a decision based on facts – you know what happens when flesh meets flame - not pure emotion. An emotional reaction to being burned is a consequence of the act, not its cause. You apparently do not understand what confirmation bias is.

Or, perhaps I understand it differently than you. Did you consider that conflicting possibility, or did you fail to "hear" or think of it? ;-)

The point being, "confirmation bias" can be a good thing

And so can making a wrong turn if a planned route happens to be blocked by a fallen tree. But that doesn’t change the fact that an error was made.[/quote]

So, given the fact of the fallen tree, you seem to view making a favorable turn an "error" and "wrong", rather than the planned route being wrong and in error to begin with? "Wow".

thus it may not be in anyone's best interest to necessarily view it as a means of summarily dismissing (in an ironically "confirmation biased" way) opposing points of view.

So it is wrong to insist bad turns normally lead to unfortunate ends, since it is not impossible that it could at times work out for the best. Wow.

So, it is wrong to consider conflicting information (i.e alternative routes to the one that was planned), even given how it has at times worked out. Amazing.

How does one determine at what point a given "confirmation bias" stops being pragmatic and starts to be problematic?

As a rule, any type of inference error that naturally leads to statistical errors should be considered problematic. But I realize these types of errors are second nature to many current LDS apologists, hence your need to make it seem OK and “pragmantic.”

In your last statement alone, you committed two inferential errors (not to mention fallacies) that cannot reasonably be supported statistically. How ironic. Was the self-indicting object lesson intended?

The question is now begged, was your evident "confirmation bias" in your post to me, pragmatic or problematic? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-