Confirmation Bias

[Biggles]

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs."

18th century rationalist philosophers didn't spend much time worrying about human psychology, but in the last 50 years it's become increasingly apparent how little objective reasoning plays in human decision making. It should be noted that confirmation bias is itself sort of a subset of Cognitive Bias.

"A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world. "

Participation in Gtplanet's forums is an object lesson in the functioning of cognitive bias & confirmation bias. Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

 

[UKMikey]

Participation in Gtplanet's forums is an object lesson in the functioning of cognitive bias & confirmation bias. Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

The US election thread certainly set me straight on whether Hillary was a good guy or not. Before I came here I wanted Trump to lose. Afterwards I wanted them both to lose.

 

[Liquid]

Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

I wouldn't say that I've had a fundamental change of beliefs since being in the OCE forum but it has allowed me to read a diverse range of opinions, analyses and critiques, and enabled me to engage with how my own opinions and beliefs come across and how to structure my arguments; the first few times I posted in here I was torn to shreds and rightly so.

What has changed between 2011 and 2018 is that I am more anti-United Kingdom, pro-Wales than I was and more little L libertarian than I was without describing myself as such as well as being the same amount of anti-organised religion and atheist as I always was but I can't say that being on GTPlanet is the primary reason for that. A lot changes in your personal development between the ages of 19 and 26 and most of it is a reaction to the world events around me but at least some of it would be down to sharing with members of both similar and dissimilar opinions on a forum.

 

[Dotini]

Participation in Gtplanet's forums is an object lesson in the functioning of cognitive bias & confirmation bias. Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

"A priori" means "relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience."

For me, I can say that not all of my prior reasoning, knowledge or beliefs based on theoretical deduction (from what I had read or been told) has survived contact with some of the better informed forum members and staff. My knowledge and beliefs based on observation and experience has fared better. But in general, I strongly affirm that participation in an eclectic international forum has been a broadening and improving experience that I, and obviously some others, have benefited from. For me, it has been a valuable learning and socializing experience for which I am grateful, and proud to be a member. On the other hand, some of Biggle's complaints are also true. But, IMO, we can and should find a way to live with the woes of fake news, the fragmented and absurd reality of postmodernism, and with people who may be cognitively or emotionally biased. What are the other choices?

 

[Danoff]

Participation in Gtplanet's forums is an object lesson in the functioning of cognitive bias & confirmation bias. Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

Yup. I can list a few members that have changed a lot, but I won't because it's their place rather than mine. I myself have changed from it. The GTPlanet opinion section offers an escape from confirmation bias - a chance to talk to people who oppose your own views, which is something that we are increasingly isolating ourselves from socially.

 

[Rallywagon]

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs."

18th century rationalist philosophers didn't spend much time worrying about human psychology, but in the last 50 years it's become increasingly apparent how little objective reasoning plays in human decision making. It should be noted that confirmation bias is itself sort of a subset of Cognitive Bias.

"A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world. "

Participation in Gtplanet's forums is an object lesson in the functioning of cognitive bias & confirmation bias. Has anyone on GTPlanet actually fundamentally reevaluated their a priori beliefs after engaging in a discussion here?

Ive certainly had a couple of my "biases" reevaluted after discussions amd debates here. More so after listening to some experts having discussions on various podcasts though.
Being a man who enjoys debate, i do often play devils advocate, which a time or two has led me on some interesting paths of discovery. That, and being quite aware of the "echo chamber effect" when doing my research on the ol google, i tend to do searches on both sides of what i am looking into.
But that said, i know i still have a few biases, and ultimately i think everyone does. I mean... post modernism right?

 

[Biggles]

"A priori" means "relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience."

For me, I can say that not all of my prior reasoning, knowledge or beliefs based on theoretical deduction (from what I had read or been told) has survived contact with some of the better informed forum members and staff. My knowledge and beliefs based on observation and experience has fared better. But in general, I strongly affirm that participation in an eclectic international forum has been a broadening and improving experience that I, and obviously some others, have benefited from. For me, it has been a valuable learning and socializing experience for which I am grateful, and proud to be a member. On the other hand, some of Biggle's complaints are also true. But, IMO, we can and should find a way to live with the woes of fake news, the fragmented and absurd reality of postmodernism, and with people who may be cognitively or emotionally biased. What are the other choices?

I stand corrected on the term "a priori". I am actually referring to "subjective social reality", which is to say people's social environment & life experience.

Religion has to be the most obvious example. Most people's religious affiliation is a consequence of where they grew up, rather than any analytical consideration of the merits of a particular religion.

A similar thing applies to politics. It is striking the degree to which voting patterns in the US reflect simple geography. The same is true in Canada, the UK, & I suspect many other areas of the world.

In response to this I have developed what I call the "Panera Principle". The Panera Principle states that any area in the US more than 40 miles from a Panera (an "upscale" sandwich shop akin to Stabucks for coffee) will have voted for Trump (I won't bore you with the complex algorithms I developed to arrive at this sophisticated analysis).

 

[Danoff]

In response to this I have developed what I call the Panera Principle". The Panera Principle states that any area in the US more than 40 miles from a Panera (an "upscale" sandwich shop akin to Stabucks for coffee) will have voted for Trump (I won't bore you with the complex algorithms I developed to arrive at this sophisticated analysis).

I like it. It does seem to be true that populations tend to lean further left with increased population density.

 

[UKMikey]

In response to this I have developed what I call the Panera Principle". The Panera Principle states that any area in the US more than 40 miles from a Panera (an "upscale" sandwich shop akin to Stabucks for coffee) will have voted for Trump (I won't bore you with the complex algorithms I developed to arrive at this sophisticated analysis).

Sounds legit to me since Dems-leaning network CNN seem to have got behind the chain to the extent that I'm left wondering whether this is an advertorial masquerading as news. It sounds like Subway for hipsters.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/05/health/panera-bread-menu-nutritionist/index.html

 

[Biggles]

I like it. It does seem to be true that populations tend to lean further left with increased population density.

It sounds like Subway for hipsters.

It's more nuanced than that. Panera isn't (remotely) for "hipsters" - it's for middle-class suburbanites looking for a little better quality fast dining experience. Panera's are not so much located in inner cities (although some are), they are located in suburbs & their customers are largely middle-class, living or working in those areas. Driving through the major travel corridors in the US means travel through or past those suburbs.

I drive a lot in the US, mainly using major instates like 90 (east-west) or 95 (north-south). Paneras are dotted along these routes (this is also true of other "upscale" chains like Chipotle, Outback, TGFI ... I use "upscale" in a very relative sense). Last year I drove back from Raleigh, NC, & rather than driving on the instates I headed "overland". This meant passing through rural areas & very small towns. Not a Panera to be found ... in fact the only dining options were McDonalds, KFC, Burger King & - for fine-dining - Wendys. No local non-chain eateries in evidence. This simple reality alone definitively separates the life experience of residents in those areas from more urban areas of the US.

Driving on, you eventually arrive in Charlottesville, VA, home of UV. Might as well be on another planet compared to rural North Carolina & Virginia ... & of course (among many other dining options) - a Panera. Driving on through central Pennsylvania you are again in the rural hinterland, until you hit State College, home of Penn State - again a parallel universe compared to the surrounding areas. Most fascinating is driving into oil country in Pennsylvania - places like Oil City & Titusville. This is the area where commercial oil production first happened in the US (hence Pennzoil & Quaker State). Definitely Trump country.

Suburbanites throughout the US, in general, have much more in common with each other than they do with rural & small town residents of rural areas in their own state. Looking at a voting map of the US, county by county, makes it clear how this reality shows up in the way people vote.

 

[Rallywagon]

Panera is like the Soup Spoon and Starbucks. Not for hipsters, its for soccer moms.

 

[Mr Tree]

To say my entire opinion changee is to much, but in one of the topics I learned that it's very hard to stop people from teaching religion to their kids without infringing on free speech an freedom of expression.
So while I am still of the opinion it's wrong to have kids affiliating to a religion before they fully understand religion. Yet I can no longer say I want to keep kids out of it until they turn 18 as I have not found a way where someone on this forum couldn't find a way to turn said regulation in a slippery slope.

And while I do not always agree with people on this forum I do find it helpfull to understand their perspective. And when you follow those perspectives you can see how they come to the conclussions they have derived from that perspective.

Also a big thank you to the staff who keep this a descent forum where honnest discussions can be had without the trolls.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm totally guilty of this. I can't help it, I just like @Conformation so damn much.

Oh...... I see.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have....a lot

 

[Danoff]

Confirmation bias is definitely a big issue in the world today, and I think that it may be a big part of why we have Trumpism right now. Runaway confirmation bias is extremely prevalent because you don't even have much of a chance to realize it's happening any more. Google, Facebook, Fox, CNN, etc. have been trying to tailor content to your particular biases as effectively as possible, and they're getting pretty good at it. So all you get fed is an unending stream of confirmations. Your brain doesn't even have to do the work anymore, it's being handed the confirmation bias as efficiently as possible. Content providers salivate at this idea because it keeps you coming back for ads.

I think, though, that we had been living in a fiction before (and when I say we, I mean the generations before mine mostly). The idea of an unbiased news source is basically an illusion. What we had before was shared news sources. Biases that huge portions of the population were all exposed to at once. What our smartphones and newsfeeds have enabled now is a much smaller distribution, a distribution of size 1. A good portion of the population seems to be handling that quite badly.

 

[UKMikey]

Twitter is pretty bad. It only seems to show me responses to tweets which agree with my world view and I have to dig deep to find opposing viewpoints. I figure it wouldn't occur to your average normie to attempt to do even that.

 

[Danoff]

One word that I wish you would familiarize yourself with is "steelman". Because you seem like you're capable of insightful critical thinking when you disagree with someone. But you also seem to absolutely shut it off when examining your own biases.

The concept of "steelmanning" I think is very helpful when it comes to combating confirmation bias. Time and again it is clear that if you want to ignore evidence and reason for why you might be wrong about something, you definitely can. The mind is more than capable of performing gymnastics needed to hold almost any belief. Including believing in a flat earth, which is easily demonstrated as incorrect from the surface of the Earth.

Steelmanning is the notion of trying to understand the best possible version of the position (with which you disagree) that you are currently presented with. It asks you to understand that the person you're talking to might not be that viewpoint's greatest champion, or the most eloquent or persuasive person. But to consider their argument in the best light you can give it. I think if we all did a bit more of that, which is hard, because it's uncomfortable to do, it might go a long way toward fighting confirmation bias.

European patent law has a great phrase, which I absolutely fawn over every chance I get. The phrase is "a mind willing to understand, not a mind desirous of misunderstanding". And I think this gets to the crux of a lot of the information issues we have today. If you don't want to understand, there is a lot you can misunderstand.

 

[UKMikey]

The concept of "steelmanning" I think is very helpful when it comes to combating confirmation bias. Time and again it is clear that if you want to ignore evidence and reason for why you might be wrong about something, you definitely can.

So steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning? I wish I had the discipline to do this in every argument I took part in. It looks like it can be difficult, but worth it in the long run.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar and it's easier to win people round to one's way of thinking if there's one or more common point of reference between you and them. At least, this is the way I understand the concept.

 

[MatskiMonk]

On the main topic (not sure if this really counts) but GTP has made me consider my opinion on the gun control debate quite a bit. I am still intuitively against guns, but I feel entirely comfortable taking a pro-gun stance now in discussions with friends who are still anti-gun. I'll do the same with veganism (i.e. I'll argue for it even though I don't necessarily hold the values)... but that's not really because of GTP, as Liquid highlighted earlier, for the members that have been here for a long time (14 years myself), it's not unlikely that life might have simply made them changed their mind.

On the topic of steel-manning, it feels to me like giving people the benefit of the doubt on things that are un-falsifiable. I'm not saying that necessarily as a bad thing, but I've noticed when discussing things like conspiracy theories it would be all too easy to talk yourself into believing anything!

edited:

I meant to say, the fact that we can have a debate on the internet with people of fundamentally different backgrounds is bound to help us expand our points of view. In the pre-forum age the chances were that you were only having debates with people from a similar social circle, which would be somewhat limiting.

 

[Hayden]

I’m a bit of a silent observer in the OCE forums, but I do read through it a lot and have done so for much of the 10+ years I’ve been here.

Seeing different viewpoints, shared in a mature way, with fact based discussion, has been a great tool to understand not just the issue, but people on a broader level.

Is there confirmation bias here? Yes. I think it’s fair to say everyone prefers one flavour of ice cream, just because they do, and won’t change their mind. On GTPlanet, this is about as far as you can get on a biased thought, because as soon as you approach facts, theres a diverse range of intelligent people here to flesh out a discussion.

I’m from a town, which (if we had it in Australia) would be 4+ hours from the nearest Panera bread. One of my best mates is extremely pro-trump and heavily biased.

I have attempted fact based discussions with him countless times, on countless topics. I have brought evidence and reasoning and given him a lot of rope to explain his point of view, deliberately seeing past many flawed points. At the end of the day, I’ll ask logical questions that he can’t answer, then the next time we talk, he’ll continue on like nothing ever happened.

I accepted long ago that I won’t be able to change his mind. Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, etc, are showing him only the viewpoint he agrees with. There is no scope for outside thinking when you are being Gill-Galloped (I saw this term on here the other day and quite like it) with a a constant barrage of one sided information.

It is incredibly dangerous and divisive. Basically forcing people into a box, where their thoughts become gradually more radical and constantly reinforced, to a point where you can no longer have a reasonable discussion.

This works in both directions and I see it as a huge problem long term. People need to break bread and discuss things, shouting from a far and dehumanising the opposing side has never led to anything good.

 

[Biggles]

Confirmation bias is definitely a big issue in the world today, and I think that it may be a big part of why we have Trumpism right now. Runaway confirmation bias is extremely prevalent because you don't even have much of a chance to realize it's happening any more. Google, Facebook, Fox, CNN, etc. have been trying to tailor content to your particular biases as effectively as possible, and they're getting pretty good at it. So all you get fed is an unending stream of confirmations. Your brain doesn't even have to do the work anymore, it's being handed the confirmation bias as efficiently as possible. Content providers salivate at this idea because it keeps you coming back for ads.

I think, though, that we had been living in a fiction before (and when I say we, I mean the generations before mine mostly). The idea of an unbiased news source is basically an illusion. What we had before was shared news sources. Biases that huge portions of the population were all exposed to at once. What our smartphones and newsfeeds have enabled now is a much smaller distribution, a distribution of size 1. A good portion of the population seems to be handling that quite badly.

Funny that this thread (which languished in obscurity for two years). At the time I started it I was more concerned with the impasse in political discussions on GTPlanet. Now that all seems quaintly old-fashioned. Thanks to the internet & social media political opinions have become more polarized than ever. Internet algorithms seem to ensure that all anyone sees or hears simply re-enforces already established viewpoints. I can see it happening to my cousin who a few months ago announced that she had done "research" & has since then gone further & further down the QAnon/Trump-worshipping rabbit hole, constantly posting links to the most dubious sources on the internet.

What we had in the past was shared news sources. Especially radio & TV. It was, of course, an era of the printed word, & there was plenty of variety of opinion in the printed word - newspapers & magazines. However, you're right the majority of people followed the national media - the big TV networks - & they presented a sense of a shared view of reality - of "facts". This has completely gone out the window in the last few years.

 

[Daz555]

I meant to say, the fact that we can have a debate on the internet with people of fundamentally different backgrounds is bound to help us expand our points of view. In the pre-forum age the chances were that you were only having debates with people from a similar social circle, which would be somewhat limiting.

The flip side is that it also allows for creation of vast echo chambers. There are some nutjob ideas out there that in a normal social setting would see the person with the nutjob conspiracy simply laughed out of the local bar. The internet however allows all these village idiots to get together and form a group - this group then validates and reinforces their idiocy.

 

[Imari]

Internet algorithms seem to ensure that all anyone sees or hears simply re-enforces already established viewpoints. I can see it happening to my cousin who a few months ago announced that she had done "research" & has since then gone further & further down the QAnon/Trump-worshipping rabbit hole, constantly posting links to the most dubious sources on the internet.

What we had in the past was shared news sources. Especially radio & TV. It was, of course, an era of the printed word, & there was plenty of variety of opinion in the printed word - newspapers & magazines. However, you're right the majority of people followed the national media - the big TV networks - & they presented a sense of a shared view of reality - of "facts". This has completely gone out the window in the last few years.

This part of it seems really interesting to me. Not everyone is a media savvy investigative journalist, and so at some point they simply form an opinion based on the best information they have to hand. And that information is so carefully shaped these days, even if it's by something as simple as an algorithm, that it becomes hard to see how someone could entirely avoid bias.

It's not crazy to believe that the whole world is out to get you if every experience and piece of information that you're given says that it's true.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The flip side is that it also allows for creation of vast echo chambers. There are some nutjob ideas out there that in a normal social setting would see the person with the nutjob conspiracy simply laughed out of the local bar. The internet however allows all these village idiots to get together and form a group - this group then validates and reinforces their idiocy.

Those ideas are literally popular and should be engaged. Ultimately the providers of the publishing or communication mechanisms for such output may decide they no longer wish to support that output's transmission, and so everybody gets free speech. Still don't get freedom from consequence, of course.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Internet algorithms seem to ensure that all anyone sees or hears simply re-enforces already established viewpoints.

Maybe the answer lies in algorithms geared to providing information from the "opposing side". But I suppose if people really wanted that we already would have had such a system....

 

[Biggles]

Maybe the answer lies in algorithms geared to providing information from the "opposing side". But I suppose if people really wanted that we already would have had such a system....

It's all about securing eyeballs, I suppose. These social media platforms are intended to make money. The more views, the more advertising $.

 

[Imari]

Maybe the answer lies in algorithms geared to providing information from the "opposing side". But I suppose if people really wanted that we already would have had such a system....

I bet that someone has tried it, and found that it doesn't work as well. And intuitively that makes sense, if you've already watching a thing you're fairly likely to enjoy and continue watching more similar content. At best it's unclear whether you'd enjoy watching a different take on the same topic, and given the title of this thread it's far more likely that you'd be unexcited by something that actively made you question your beliefs.

The algorithms only make clear what are already fundamental human behaviours. They're intended to take advantage of how humans engage with information, not to change it.

 

[Pupik]

Panera is like the Soup Spoon and Starbucks. Not for hipsters, its for soccer moms.

Yeah, but the Frontega Chicken sandwich hits the spot. Disclosure: I'm a "soccer dad" on weekends. And those soups are a nice change of pace on cold days.

You can hear a lot of the same headline, which makes people less susceptible to a closer inspection. It's sometimes more difficult to do research "in the moment", rather than take pause for a few days and let the truth separate itself from the fluff and frill.

It's said that reporters get to write the first drafts of history, but most first drafts are imperfect.

 

[Biggles]

It's all about securing eyeballs, I suppose. These social media platforms are intended to make money. The more views, the more advertising $.

Just watched the Social Dilemma on Netflix. It explains "cinematically" how Big Tech manipulates people's interests & funnels them, via active algorithms on social media, down the rabbit hole of confirmation bias because it's the easiest way to make advertising money. The documentary shows how this is leading to increased polarization in society that can be seen very clearly in what is happening in the US right now.

 

[Danoff]

Just watched the Social Dilemma on Netflix. It explains "cinematically" how Big Tech manipulates people's interests & funnels them, via active algorithms on social media, down the rabbit hole of confirmation bias because it's the easiest way to make advertising money. The documentary shows how this is leading to increased polarization in society that can be seen very clearly in what is happening in the US right now.

It's a thought-provoking (but also blatantly biased and over the top) doc. I do think it has a big point to make, and I wish it had made that point a little more factually. Our brains are not wired to handle the degree of filtering we've been handed. There was something rolling around in the back of my head the whole time I was watching it though. How can increased information not lead to polarization? I mean sure, you can get everyone to toe the line and agree if you feed them a single news source that they can all just agree with. But when you give them lots of news, gasp, they get upset about stuff... and different stuff too! That's polarization.