Confirmation bias

[Hamish MacWolf]

I just wanted to share something interesting I encountered on Wikipedia recently. Yes, I know, the intellectual elite will be saying, “Wikipedia? Pshaw! I wouldn’t let my butler’s basset read that populist trash!” But I have found, taken with a grain of salt, quite a few nuggets amidst the dross.

This particular item was the featured article a few days ago. May I quote some lines:

“Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favour information that confirms their preconceptions, independently of whether they are true. As a result, people gather new evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.”

I immediately thought of the off-topic discussions I have read and participated in on the forum, and wished to say something to all those who care to hear.

Don’t be discouraged or disappointed when your efforts come to naught! Don’t get upset when your arguments move others not one jot! The truth is, thanks to confirmation bias, you really do have next-to-no chance of convincing someone of a contrary view to abandon their position using nothing but impersonal (for the interweb is indeed impersonal), cerebral argument.

That’s not to say stop posting, but rather, have realistic expectations. I believe that the best, most valuable use for discussion forums are for people within a specific field of view, or belief, to ask one another for opinion, advice or instruction. Or, if someone outside of a view honestly – note this word, honestly – is curious to discover a fact or facet. And asking, “How can anyone be so stupid as to believe that tripe?” is not a valid question. It is someone trying to pick a fight.

So chin up, gentle souls! Very few have ever entered or left a political, cultural or religious camp because a faceless stranger online pointed out something on a forum.

[Daytripper]

Being new, it took me a bit of time to get through all the posts, hehe.

This is a known phenomenon, and it is worse with people who are naturally narrow minded.

The opposite is also true. People will happily except new ideas as long as they are exactly the same as the older ideas they know.

We can say you have a network of beliefs, so to speak. If this is really fixed then anything at all contradicting your beliefs is going to be discarded. Even though it makes sense, you will make some excuse for it or discredit the source. This is called cognitive dissonance.

Only if you have a truly open and analytical mind you have some means to resist this. Just consider alternative theories. Yes, you have one main idea BUT other theories might be correct. If you find another theory to be better, just put that in place.

This is just a plastic or liquid state of mind. I have found some people can't do this. Especially if you're a theist it's pretty hard to say, ''ok, this was not so good. Let's re consider my religion a bit.'' You will be dealing with peer pressure or your faith can shake. With religion you pretty much have to take the whole package usually...     

[Hamish MacWolf]

Ooh! You were doing so well, up until your third last sentence. I was agreeing with you – in fact, it would be pretty hard to disagree with the clear thinking you were expressing – until your own confirmation bias popped in.

Can I go out on a limb and suggest that you yourself are not a theist? If I’m wrong, please do correct me, but I was wondering, considering your use of the veiled accusative, “Especially if you…”

I would say that there is just as much peer pressure, to use your own term, amongst non-theists as there is amongst theists. Humans inherently feel the need to conform, to varying degrees, with whomever our peers are. If one was a member of the Richard Dawkins fan club, I think it would be difficult for one to turn up to a meeting and say, “Guys, I’ve changed my mind. I think Jehovah is real, and someone worth listening to!”

And as for taking the whole package of religion, it really depends what you mean. If it is a core tenet of a faith, then yes, it is a bit take-it-or-leave-it. It’s difficult to be a Hindu if you disregard the nature of Brahma. But the whole concept of sects, or denominations, is about people deciding not to accept the entire package they were sold. The often like the heart, but have issues with some of the trimmings.

On the whole, though, I do agree with you. It’s really hard to change the mind of an adult human when it comes to our core values.

[Daytripper]

Haha,

Maybe you are right, I don't know. Can you be totally objective about yourself?

While I don't care for the term, I am agnostic or atheist, or agnostic atheist. That actually says nothing really. It's all connected with the semantics of the word ''to know,'' which I tried to explain earlier.

I have read some of the work of Dawkins, and while I understand his sentiments, his work is pretty provocative and more persuading than scientific. Yes, we can all agree the kind of belief he is describing is disturbing, but he is building a strawman to flame down. I think only a minority of theists are as extreme as he describes it. I see religious advertizing all the time, so I have no problem with Dawkins making some noise either. At least Dawkins doesn't visit my home to say evolution is not real. I don't want to be associated with Dawkins's anti-theistic atheism, however. If you want to argue Dawkins is just as extreme as a young earth creationist you are probably right.

No, what I mean is having a truly open mind, considering everything that comes in. An atheist/agnostic can always correct his views because it doesn't matter. I also know Christians who say something like this: ''I believe in God, but as far as bible interpretations, anything goes and it doesn't affect my belief in God if an interpretation was suddenly changed.''

Now, the Christians have a group the atheists/agnostics don't have. This is the ''the bible and everything in it must be literal because it's divine'' group. These people are going to deny scientific evidence. It is true. I have an anti-evolution booklet and also a scientific explanation for Noah's ark. This is supposed to be an alternative for evolution. Read that and you will see it is so inconsistent it just cannot account for the current state of the world. I especially refer to this group when I'm talking about the ''whole package religion dilemma.'' These people are actually creating a problem for themselves because their stance cannot hold if scrutinized.

 

[Hamish MacWolf]

I know what you mean about the sub-sect of any faith – as I do believe they exist within every group of believers and non-believers – that possess a kind of self-justified absolutism. I must also say that your respective humility with regard to your own views is encouraging. Thank you.

Really, I believe it boils down to being essentially close or open-minded. It is altogether possible to say, “This is my belief. There are aspects of it which I myself do not yet understand, and which I am prepared to discuss with others, maybe even be convinced differently about by others, yet I can still remain true to that belief.”

One of the snags with the Christian bible is that it isn’t really a book. It’s a library, or an anthology. It contains poetry, philosophical treatise, folk stories, and first-person historical records. Some books in it are meant to be taken literally, and viewed as accurate testimony of real events. (Note – meant to be taken literally. I am not claiming their authenticity myself, but merely the intention of the authors.) Other books were not intended to be literal, historical texts, even when they were written.

So a big problem that many people have, both Christians and non-Christians, is a misunderstanding of this, and a belief that it is, as you said, all-or-nothing. I believe than an analysis of the Christian bible is far more complex than that. Comparing, say, the opening chapters of Genesis with the Gospel of Luke, is just plain wrong.

And as for that good ol’ “knock on your door” factor, while I don’t believe that’s the best way to share one’s faith, I can at least understand where they’re coming from. The chief difference between an atheist and a theist in this regard is that the theist actually has both a moral imperative, and in many cases, and explicit imperative within their creed, to share their faith with others. They do it (most of them, anyway) because they honestly believe it is right. For this fact alone, I like to cut them some slack.

[RigoJMortis]

This is really a problem with humans in general, but can you blame people?

As Dr. Gregory House once said when asked why he always assumed he was right, "I don't, I just find it hard to operate on the opposite assumption."

We all have to operate to our best understanding.  Just because I chose a different worldview that makes sense to me than you did doesn't make me wrong.  I might be wrong, but so might you.


Another problem is that everyone assumes that others are "assuming you're right," even if said others believe they're following the most recent evidence provided This is because everyone thinks they're right and that they have the most up-to-date evidence.  We don't really have a choice in believing we're right.  Whether or not we seek out truth and whether or not we're willing to change based on said proof varies.  Everyone assumes they're right until they're proven wrong.  At this point they may or may not accept the "proof."  However, people who disagree with them will claim that they're suffering from confirmation bias.  (btw, this is also called the halo effect.)

For example, I am a Christian.  I believe in God because I'm operating with the most up-to-date evidence (personal experience).  However, an atheist could come and "disprove" my personal experiences, and I would still choose to reject them, since I believe my evidence is more up-to-date than theirs.  Said atheist might say that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, while I might say the same about her.

At the same time, I'm constantly open to new evidence.  It's just hard to imagine evidence that would trump my own.

[Daytripper]

Exactly, exactly.

You never know when an atheist might agree with you, he has no rule book.  Just keep talking and you might be surprised.

Getting back to the subject... When I visited some pro religious websites, the kind that warn about those evil atheists, the default mind set seemed to be the atheist visitors had to be misguided and obnoxious. It didn't quite seem to take some atheists might enjoy a civil conversation with a Christian. It really took a while, then things opened up a bit.

I don't know if that happens more often. For now I shall blame those sites for getting those ideas in people's heads. Now, however they got these ideas in the first place, it was pretty hard to shake them once in place.

btw thanks Hamish, I think we understand each other.