82,387
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}The related phenomena of [[causation]], [[correlation]], cognitive bias come together in the idea of [[ | {{g}}The related phenomena of [[causation]], [[correlation]], cognitive bias come together in the idea of [[cognitive dissonance]] - how one person can hold separate ideas in her head whose underlying values, premises and assumptions contradict each other. | ||
You will be familiar with the experience of | ===[[Confirmation bias]]=== | ||
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 eco warriors and anyone who's tried to querying an [[HR]] policy. This kind of arguments is utterly fruitless, but thoroughly entertaining for the protagonists until one pushes one got button too far, and it's all out war. | |||
It is fruitless because everyone who holds a view will accept any fact which seems to support it as immutable proof, and will explain away, dissemble or at the limit flat-out ignore any fact which tends to contradict it. Sample arguments include as hominems, reductio as absurdams, analogising to the Third Reich and if you're really rattled, the old [[correlation does not imply causation]] chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly. | It is fruitless because everyone who holds a view will accept any fact which seems to support it as immutable proof, and will explain away, dissemble or at the limit flat-out ignore any fact which tends to contradict it. Their acceptance of incoming information is biased in favour of what they want to hear - stuff that confirms your existing [[narrative]] and against information which undermines it. Hence [[confirmation bias]]. Sample arguments include as hominems, reductio as absurdams, analogising to the Third Reich and if you're really rattled, the old [[correlation does not imply causation]] chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly. | ||
You won't notice you're doing it. You won't even ''believe' you're doing it. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons you should do this. This is how scientific progress works . |