Confirmation bias: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This kind of arguments is fruitless — exhilarating, for a while, but quite pointless — at least until you push one hot button too far, and it’s all-out war. | This kind of arguments is fruitless — exhilarating, for a while, but quite pointless — at least until you push one hot button too far, and it’s all-out war. | ||
It is pointless to argue across these [[Paradigm|intellectual divides]] because everyone who holds a view from one tradition will accept as immutable proof of it any contention, however wan, which seems to support it, and will explain away, dissemble or, at the limit, flat-out ''ignore'' any assertion — such as one from another tradition — which tends to undermine it. | It is pointless to argue across these [[Paradigm|intellectual divides]] because everyone who holds a view from one tradition will accept as immutable proof of it any contention, however wan, which seems to support it, and will explain away, dissemble or, at the limit, flat-out ''[[ignore]]'' any assertion — such as one from another tradition — which tends to undermine it. | ||
We ''all'' apply a rose-tinted filter, that is to say. | We ''all'' apply a rose-tinted filter, that is to say. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]] | *[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]] | ||
*[[Ignorance]] | |||
*[[Prosecutor’s tunnel vision]] | *[[Prosecutor’s tunnel vision]] | ||
*{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} — {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s wonderful book which explains this is a different, but just as compelling, way. | *{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} — {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s wonderful book which explains this is a different, but just as compelling, way. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:21, 2 August 2024
|
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
|
You will be familiar with the experience of the futile argument with to someone who holds a contrary idea to yours. If you’re not, what the hell were you doing at university? The atheist who heckles the born-again preacher — or vice versa — will know this feeling. So will Marxists who engage capitalists, climate deniers who take on lentil-munching XR eco-warrior types and anyone who’s tried querying force ranking with HR.
This kind of arguments is fruitless — exhilarating, for a while, but quite pointless — at least until you push one hot button too far, and it’s all-out war.
It is pointless to argue across these intellectual divides because everyone who holds a view from one tradition will accept as immutable proof of it any contention, however wan, which seems to support it, and will explain away, dissemble or, at the limit, flat-out ignore any assertion — such as one from another tradition — which tends to undermine it.
We all apply a rose-tinted filter, that is to say.
Our acceptance of incoming information is biased in favour of what we want to hear — which confirms our existing narrative — and against information which undermines it. Hence confirmation bias.
See also
- Texas sharpshooter fallacy
- Ignorance
- Prosecutor’s tunnel vision
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn’s wonderful book which explains this is a different, but just as compelling, way.
- Cognitive dissonance
- Causation — The relation to a given conclusion enjoyed by ideas with which you happen to agree;
- Correlation — The relation to a given conclusion suffered by ideas with which you do not.