Skip to main content

Confirmation Bias




Confirmation bias is a phrase I have been hearing a lot lately. It is simply the tendency in humans to give more weight to evidence that supports their beliefs: to “confirm” them. I have been hearing about it and seeing evidence of it especially in the political realm of late. Oh, no party has a monopoly on this; everyone does it to a certain extent. Every time you see a meme on Facebook that makes you go “Yeah!” and immediately repost it, without checking to see if it is actually true, you are not only guilty of it, but are encouraging it in others.

Let’s say, you take a firm stand on trade for example. You could be someone who believes in free trade, or alternately, you could believe in protectionism.  Whichever it is, you believe in it, and you want others to believe in it too, so you go about looking for evidence that supports your view. See, you are already in trouble. Instead of gathering evidence to see which model is actually better, you have already decided before you start gathering evidence. At this point, it doesn’t matter much what you do. You are going to find evidence supporting your view. Any evidence that runs counter to your belief is simply not going to make it on your radar. If you are a free trader, you will find evidence that free trade boosts the economy, lowers prices for the consumer, increases foreign investment. If you hold more of a protectionist belief, you may find evidence that protectionism helps boost domestic companies, that it increases local jobs and wages. Whichever view you hold, you will look at the evidence through your own biased lens. Every news item or op-ed that supports your view will make you go, “see! That’s just what I’m talking about!” Every news item that runs counter to your belief, you will simply see as faulty. This is called cherry-picking the data. But interpretation comes into it too. Each side can look at the same piece of data and interpret it to fit his own belief system. Having confirmation bias doesn’t make you a bad person. We all do it to some degree. But the world would run smoother if we could all recognize it in ourselves and try to overcome it.

Dealing with confirmation bias is one of the mainstays of the modern scientific method. The scientific method has given us the modern world. It has given us modern medicine, modern transportation, the power grid, telecommunication etc. Science had to come out of the dark age to do this. And one of the main things science had to overcome was the bias of the scientist. If a scientist had a belief, stated it as fact, and didn’t bother to test it, the world was stuck. Aristotle was a great thinker, but he made some rather bizarre statements. He said that women had fewer teeth than men, that eels spontaneously generate out of mud, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. The problem is, he just came up with these ideas. He didn’t bother to test them (I mean, how hard can it be to count how many teeth women have and how many men have?) But Aristotle said these things and everyone accepted them because Aristotle said so. Galileo went to prison because he disagreed with Aristotle (since the church believed Aristotle, saying anything different was heresy, no matter your pesky little experiments. No, don’t try to confuse me with facts.)

Just having experiments and tests does not bring us to the modern scientific method. You can still perform experiments that will support your hypothesis and ignore others. Or interpret the data to favor your belief. No, to make science really modern was to get rid of the bias of the scientist.  So, we have things like double blind studies where neither the subjects nor the scientist, know which group of people are taking the experimental drug, and which are taking a placebo.  This is the only way to get data that isn’t skewed. This hasn’t completely eliminated bias. If a piece of data has any ambiguity in it, two different scientists can still interpret it in different ways. But the path to the truth is much clearer than it was in the old days, and more often than not, there is a scientific consensus about what the data means.

So, it is good to periodically examine your beliefs dispassionately, like as an outsider looking in. See how your beliefs jive with actual (you know) facts. And if you are reading this and thinking ‘yes, that is just what those people need to do,’ you are missing the point. You will need to examine your biases. We all do. We all drink from our own respective Kool-Aid.

(My science fiction novel Star Liner, is now available in paperback or as an e-book through Amazon and other online sources).

Link to Star Liner

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...
Post a Comment
Read more