Confirmation bias... I didn't know it was this complicated !

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
I can just about make sense of this
Quote:
"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People tend to unconsciously select information that supports their views, but ignoring non-supportive information."

This took a bit more thinking about:

Confirmation bias tends to disappear when we add context. In a second study, Wason (1968) used a four-card problem to demonstrate confirmation bias. For example: Four cards are shown, each of which has a number on one side and a color on the other. The visible faces show 3, 8, red and brown. Participants are asked, "Which two cards should you turn over to test the claim that if a card has an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?” (This is a slight variant of Wason’s original task)

Most people turn over cards two and three. Card two, showing an “8,” is a useful test because of the opposite face is not red, the claim is disproved. But turning over card three, “red,” is a useless test because the claim is not that only cards with even numbers on one side have a red opposite face. Selecting card three illustrates confirmation bias.

However, Griggs and Cox (1982) applied some context to the four-card problem—they situated the task in a tavern with a barkeeper intent on following the law about underage drinking. Now the question took the form, “Which two of these cards should you turn over to test the claim that in this bar, 'If you are drinking alcohol then you must be over 19'?" Griggs and Cox found that 73 percent of the participants now chose “16,” and the beer—meaning the confirmation bias effect seen in Wason's version had mostly vanished"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...ont/201905/the-curious-case-confirmation-bias
 

Last edited:
Are our views and prejudices influenced by our personality or personal experiences? Do people ever have a radical re-think and completely change their views on something, perhaps after a particular experience?
 
Rosemarie said:
Are our views and prejudices influenced by our personality or personal experiences? Do people ever have a radical re-think and completely change their views on something, perhaps after a particular experience?
Click to expand...
I'll have to try to think a bit more about your questions, but these extra extracts from the paper quoted above touch on all kind of issues you may find interesting and helpful:

"Think about it: Of course we use our initial beliefs and frames to guide our explorations. How else would we search for information? Sometimes we can be tricked, in a cleverly designed study. Sometimes we trick ourselves when our initial belief is wrong. The use of our initial beliefs, gained through experience, isn’t perfect. However, it is not clear that there are better ways of proceeding in ambiguous and uncertain settings.

We seem to have a category error here—people referring to the original Wason data on the triples and the four cards (even though these data are problematic) and then stretching the concept of confirmation bias to cover all kinds of semi-related or even unrelated problems, usually with hindsight: If someone makes a mistake, then the researchers hunt for some aspect of confirmation bias. As David Woods observed, "The focus on confirmation bias commits hindsight bias."

For all these reasons, the second claim that the confirmation tendency is dysfunctional doesn’t seem warranted. We are able to make powerful use of our experience to identify a likely initial hypothesis and then use that hypothesis to guide the way we search for more data.

How would we search for data without using our experience? We wouldn’t engage in random search because that strategy seems highly inefficient. And I don’t think we would always try to search for data that could disprove our initial hypothesis, because that strategy won’t help us make sense of confusing situations. Even scientists do not often try to falsify their hypotheses, so there’s no reason to set this strategy up as an ideal for practitioners.

The confirmation bias advocates seem to be ignoring the important and difficult process of hypothesis generation, particularly under ambiguous and changing conditions. These are the kinds of conditions favoring the positive test strategy that Klayman and Ha studied."
 

Just as a matter of interest grahamg, and going off the topic rather, has anyone done any research into the differences between those who were educated at a boarding school and those who attended day schools?
 
Rosemarie said:
Just as a matter of interest grahamg, and going off the topic rather, has anyone done any research into the differences between those who were educated at a boarding school and those who attended day schools?
Click to expand...
I went to a day school in the 1960s/1970s, so have limited knowledge of boarding schools. We did play some of them at rugby, and the Stonyhurst College lads to Lancashire were a bit small, but tenacious tacklers, (maybe undernourished, or too much time on with their minds on other things than indulgences like food?).
Others say there is an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" tradition in some private/boarding schools, but the records show how many go on to be prime ministers, or succeed in other field/professions. :)
 
Last edited:
grahamg said:
If you get a chance follow the link to the psychology today website, and take a look at the four card puzzle mentioned above, because it does test your ability to think logically, whatever else it does, so is fun to see if you can master it. :)
Click to expand...
I have that site in my favorites but I've bookmarked it for tonight. When I'm awake enough to understand it. ;)
 
The card illustration tends to be confusing and a better example would be as it relates to people. From my own perspective, young people tend to be influenced too easily. The older you get, the more wisdom you gain, and you tend to think things through. I think that can be illustrated with voting at least with myself.
 
Rosemarie said:
Are our views and prejudices influenced by our personality or personal experiences? Do people ever have a radical re-think and completely change their views on something, perhaps after a particular experience?
Click to expand...
I would say yes to the first, and yes, it's possible to the second. People can be an influence, as one tends to "blend in" with who they are with.
 
If you go into an inquiry with an open mind (i.e. willing to look at all perspectives equally), you may not like what you find but you will have learned something new. If you go into an inquiry with a foregone conclusion, all you will end up with is support for that conclusion, which is what you already "knew". I prefer the former.

Tony
 
tbeltrans said:
If you go into an inquiry with an open mind (i.e. willing to look at all perspectives equally), you may not like what you find but you will have learned something new. If you go into an inquiry with a foregone conclusion, all you will end up with is support for that conclusion, which is what you already "knew". I prefer the former.

Tony
Click to expand...

I think there are studies which show that confirmation bias is something one does unconsciously so that even if one goes into an inquiry with an open mind they will have some sort of confirmation bias. It might be something totally unrelated to the thing one is making an inquiry about. For example if one changes the race of a character in a study story the inquiry will tend towards a positive result if the character is white as opposed to if they are black. The interesting thing is that this confirmation bias happens in people who are white and people who are black.
 
It's amazing how many subconscious things go into our decisions and choices. I'm reading a book about touch and just by being presented with a soft object before making a decision as opposed to a hard object will skew the person making the decision towards a softer decision as opposed to a hard one.
 
When I worked as a technician, one thing we didn't want is for a tech who had been chasing a problem to tell us what s/he had already done so that we could go at it with a fresh perspective rather than unconsciously getting stuck into the thought patterns of the tech who had not been successful in chasing the problem.

I have read of people, such as Chet Atkins, who came up with unique ways of trying to copy what he heard on the radio while growing up and developing his own flavor of playing as a result, only to later see on TV the artist he was copying. That player did it quite differently. If Chet had seen the other player and then tried to play the tune, he would have ended up sounding like that player instead of as himself in his own unique style.

Scientists often seem to get stuck in a certain line of inquiry due to having read the studies that came before. A scientist who comes up with something entirely different, often either had no prior knowledge of studies already performed, or otherwise somehow found a means of ignoring that and going off in a new direction.

As with many things human, it seems there is more "this AND that" rather than "either this OR that".

Edit: Referring back to what I said in my earlier post, I have often researched something, think it was a particular way, only to find out I was wrong. I could have found supporting evidence for what I thought was true, but to me that would be a waste of time. There are times when the evidence overwhelmingly supports what I originally thought, but I am also open to being wrong and learning something new. I doubt that I am alone in this (at least I hope not!).

My wife, on the other hand, strongly aligns with a particular political party and rejects any possible evidence that the other guys may also have some perfectly valid ideas too.

Tony
 
Last edited:
It's the reason prospective jurors are asked how much they already know about an incident or if they feel strongly about certain things.

I was once asked what the bumper sticker on my car read. I answered that I had no bumper stickers and was then accepted to serve on that jury.
 
tbeltrans said:
When I worked as a technician, one thing we didn't want is for a tech who had been chasing a problem to tell us what s/he had already done so that we could go at it with a fresh perspective rather than unconsciously getting stuck into the thought patterns of the tech who had not been successful in chasing the problem.

I have read of people, such as Chet Atkins, who came up with unique ways of trying to copy what he heard on the radio while growing up and developing his own flavor of playing as a result, only to later see on TV the artist he was copying. That player did it quite differently. If Chet had seen the other player and then tried to play the tune, he would have ended up sounding like that player instead of as himself in his own unique style.

Scientists often seem to get stuck in a certain line of inquiry due to having read the studies that came before. A scientist who comes up with something entirely different, often either had no prior knowledge of studies already performed, or otherwise somehow found a means of ignoring that and going off in a new direction.

As with many things human, it seems there is more "this AND that" rather than "either this OR that".

Tony
Click to expand...
You have reminded me of a documentary I watched many years ago, showing the herculean efforts one man, professor Andrew Wiles, (with a bit of help from a second at some critical points), solved the mathematic conundrum that had confounded mathematicians for centuries, and was supposed to be insoluble, "Fermat's Last Theorem", (see below).

The point I wanted to make was that this man Andrew Wiles only felt able to attempt this task by keeping his efforts entirely secret for about two years, and then only revealing what he'd been working upon to this one guy he trusted, and who pointed out a weakness in the solution he'd reached at that stage, forcing him into a deep depression, from which he managed to pick himself up, start at his task anew and finally he won through, winning a Nobel prize or something I think. This inability to cope with anyone interfering in his work even those trying to be helpful, or anyone who might tell him he shouldn't attempt it, was very revealing, and though he nearly drove himself mad in this pursuit, he couldn't have done it any other way!

I must say I'm very guilty of trying to figure out things, even very simple problems, without asking for help, when it would be much easier to do so. :rolleyes:

Quote:
"Professor Who Solved Fermat's Last Theorem Wins Math's Abel Prize. Mathematics professor Andrew Wiles has won a prize for solving Fermat's Last Theorem. ... As Princeton notes today, Wiles spent years attacking the problem, eventually working out the final proof with a former student, Richard Taylor.

And here it is:
In number theory, Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than 2. The cases n = 1 and n = 2 have been known since antiquity to have infinitely many solutions.

a^n +b^n=c^n

a,b,c
=positive integers
n
=integer greater than 2
 
The reason I wondered about the boarding school versus day school question is because each household is unique, so a child who attends a day school is strongly influenced by its home environment. A boarding school teaches the same regimen to all its pupils. I wonder just how this affects their behaviour and attitudes in adult life.
 
asp3 said:
I think there are studies which show that confirmation bias is something one does unconsciously so that even if one goes into an inquiry with an open mind they will have some sort of confirmation bias. It might be something totally unrelated to the thing one is making an inquiry about. For example if one changes the race of a character in a study story the inquiry will tend towards a positive result if the character is white as opposed to if they are black. The interesting thing is that this confirmation bias happens in people who are white and people who are black.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that we do make certain choices or take on certain views (or are at least more amenable to certain perspectives vs others) subconsciously, so I can't disagree with. What I can do, which is hopefully how my follow-on posts will be interpreted, is to broaden the scope from either/or to "and" because I also believe that it is possible to realize that we may subconsciously lean a certain way, and then take steps to counterbalance that.

Tony
 
tbeltrans said:
I don't doubt that we do make certain choices or take on certain views (or are at least more amenable to certain perspectives vs others) subconsciously, so I can't disagree with. What I can do, which is hopefully how my follow-on posts will be interpreted, is to broaden the scope from either/or to "and" because I also believe that it is possible to realize that we may subconsciously lean a certain way, and then take steps to counterbalance that.

Tony
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I think it's important to understand one's own biases and use that information to double check important decisions. I guess my point is that we're blind to a lot of our own biases. I'm not aware of any tests which help identify our biases, but I bet there are some.
 
asp3 said:
I agree completely. I think it's important to understand one's own biases and use that information to double check important decisions. I guess my point is that we're blind to a lot of our own biases. I'm not aware of any tests which help identify our biases, but I bet there are some.
Click to expand...
If we can listen to feedback from other people, like it or not (definitely not easy to do!), and really hear them, we can sometimes learn to see some of our biases through another's eyes. I think there needs to be some trust involved, rather than trying to glean sense from somebody who is just over the top pissed at you for some reason, though just maybe there is some kernel of useful in such a tirade. :)

That is a tall order and I don't want to imply that I am such a saint that I can do this all the time. Sometimes I can, sometimes not. That said, you point stands.

Tony
 
grahamg said:
I can just about make sense of this
Quote:
"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People tend to unconsciously select information that supports their views, but ignoring non-supportive information."

This took a bit more thinking about:

Confirmation bias tends to disappear when we add context. In a second study, Wason (1968) used a four-card problem to demonstrate confirmation bias. For example: Four cards are shown, each of which has a number on one side and a color on the other. The visible faces show 3, 8, red and brown. Participants are asked, "Which two cards should you turn over to test the claim that if a card has an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?” (This is a slight variant of Wason’s original task)

Most people turn over cards two and three. Card two, showing an “8,” is a useful test because of the opposite face is not red, the claim is disproved. But turning over card three, “red,” is a useless test because the claim is not that only cards with even numbers on one side have a red opposite face. Selecting card three illustrates confirmation bias.

However, Griggs and Cox (1982) applied some context to the four-card problem—they situated the task in a tavern with a barkeeper intent on following the law about underage drinking. Now the question took the form, “Which two of these cards should you turn over to test the claim that in this bar, 'If you are drinking alcohol then you must be over 19'?" Griggs and Cox found that 73 percent of the participants now chose “16,” and the beer—meaning the confirmation bias effect seen in Wason's version had mostly vanished"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...ont/201905/the-curious-case-confirmation-bias
Click to expand...
I understand bits and pieces of this article. I agree.
 
Rosemarie wrote:
....which includes the Christian Church!
Nathan said:
I'm not trying to nitpick, just wanted to clarify that there is no one unified Christian church, but many with differing views, some of which do have an agenda for cult control.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest every church in every land might have an element of mind control in their services, though some hugely so, whilst others are very mild indeed, (a test I sometimes try to use when listening to a sermon is can I decide whether the aim of the speaker is "to show everyone what is to be believed or is he or she merely telling everyone to believe it?).

On the boarding school versus day schools question, there must be influences somewhat more pronounced when the students are away from any mollycoddling the parents might indulge in, and you'd think the pupils will be hardened and made more independent as a result, (parents spending a lot of money to send their children away from home must have some good reasons, besides not wanting them under their feet!).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top