Confirmation bias: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 9: Line 9:
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]].  
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]].  
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]
*[[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.
*[[Cognitive dissonance]]
*[[Cognitive dissonance]]
*[[Causation]] — The relation to a given conclusion enjoyed by ideas with which you happen to agree;
*[[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.
*[[Correlation]] — The relation to a given conclusion suffered by ideas with which you do not.

Revision as of 08:11, 2 August 2024

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

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