Confirmation Bias

[cali]

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[DetlefK]

1. "Ha! I knew it!"

[cali]

2. .......

[el_bryanto]

3. That only really applies if you are occasionally wrong. When you are always right (like me) . . .

It's not really a problem. What's really baffling is why people present information or opinions that are at variance with my own. Don't they realize that I'm right?

Bryant

[cali]

5. I should have known this would get a lot of snark

not that it isn't snarkworthy, but confirmation bias on DU is at epidemic proportions. It's really nuts.

[el_bryanto]

9. Joking aside - you are entirely right.

Let's be honest, our friends on the right have for years had media outlets that catered to their confirmation bias; Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, all telling them to ignore the evidence of their eyes and just believe what they know in their hearts to be true.

It is very comforting; and we are starting to seek out those outlets of our own.

Bryant

[JoePhilly]

4. Why do you think DU has an IGNORE feature?

[cali]

7. I don't think that's a fix

I think being aware of one's tendency to do this and to make sure that your sources of information aren't all about confirming your biases is important.

[JoePhilly]

8. Blocking out info sources that do not confirm one's pre-existing beliefs

is, in and of itself, a defense of one's confirmation bias.

And the ratio of confirming evidence encountered increases.

[RC]

10. That is why I have no one on Ignore and have never trashed a thread.

[JoePhilly]

13. Me either.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. No foolin'. Here's an intresting recent study.

The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions
Saul M. Kassin, Itiel E. Drorb, Jeff Kukuckaa

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Article history:
Received 28 October 2012 Received in revised form 29 December 2012 Accepted 3 January 2013

No link because it's behind a paywall, but the lead author will likely send you a copy of thw whole thing if you email him.
E-mail address: [e-mail] (S.M. Kassin).

On March 11, 2004, a coordinated series of bombs exploded in four commuter trains in Madrid. The explosions killed 191 people, wounded 1800 others, and set into motion a full-scale international investigation. On the basis of a latent fingerprint lifted from a bag containing detonating devices, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investi- gation (FBI) positively identified Brandon Mayfield, an American Muslim from the state of Oregon. Subsequent to 9–11, Mayfield had been on an FBI watch list. Following standard protocol, a num- ber of FBI fingerprint examiners independently concluded that the fingerprint was definitely that of Mayfield. After being arrested and appearing in court, Mayfield requested to have a fingerprint examiner on the defense team examine the prints. That fingerprint examiner concurred with the judgment that the print was Mayfield’s. Soon thereafter, however, the Spanish authorities matched the prints to the real Madrid bomber, an Algerian national by the name of Ouhnane Daoud. Following an internal investigation at the FBI and a report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG, 2006), “confirmation bias” was listed as a contributing factor to the erroneous identification. At that point, the U.S. government issued a formal apology, and paid two million dollars in compensation.

The FBI has rigorous standards of training and practice and highly competent forensic examiners. It is considered one of the best, if not the best forensic laboratories in the U.S., if not in the entire world. Thus, it was not easy to dismiss the error and claim it to be the product of mere “bad apples.” The Mayfield case (preceded by a decade in which the U.S. Supreme Court had sought to curb the introduction at trial of experts in junk science—see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 1999), along with improprieties discovered in various state laboratories, have come together to draw attention to forensic science and to the fact that is not infallible. Forensic science errors have also surfaced with alarming frequency in DNA exoneration cases and other wrongful convictions (Garrett, 2011; http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Crime-Lab-Oversight.php). In “The genetics of innocence,” Hampikian, West, and Akselrod (2011) found that several types of forensic science testimony had been used to wrongfully convict innocent individuals. In cases where trial transcripts or reliable forensic science data were avail- able for review, 38% contained incorrect serology testimony, which is highly regarded. In addition, 22% involved hair comparisons; 3% involved bite mark comparisons; and 2% involved fingerprint comparisons.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2009) published a scathing assessment of a broad range of forensic disciplines. Included in this critique were toolmarks and firearms; hair and fiber analysis; impression evidence; blood spatter; fibers; hand- writing; and even fingerprints—until recently considered infallible. NAS concluded that there are problems with standardization, reliability, accuracy and error, and the potential for contextual bias. Specifically, the NAS report went on to advise that: “These disci- plines need to develop rigorous protocols to guide these subjective interpretations and pursue equally rigorous research and evaluation programs. The development of such research programs can benefit significantly from other areas, notably from the large bodyof research on the evaluation of observer performance in diagnos- tic medicine and from the findings of cognitive psychology on the potential for bias and error in human observers” (p. 8).

[ProSense]

11. I made a similar point

"a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023657282#post62

It's an interesting phenomenon. I saw it during the debates and even at the DNC. There seems to be a lot of screaming by some, including in the media, whenever the administration is involved in any high profile action/activity. They whip themselves into a frenzy and come away convinced that their confusion is the administration's incompetence or inexperience. When it doesn't end in disaster, they deem it a lucky break for the President.

The problem with this approach is that minor mistakes are overhyped and rampant speculation becomes fact. The more detractors there are, the more frenzied the hype and speculation, which is why this situation is where it is today. A lot of people, and many in the media, love to take potshots at Obama, and Kerry brings some others into the mix.

I remember Kerry being asked to respond to some of the speculation that was being presented as fact. It's as if people expect the scenarios they create before they know the facts are to be treated by the administration as its problem. No, stop making shit up and pretending it's real.

Here's the deal: When it works out, and the President walks away having achieved his objective, he's got every right to take credit.

[pampango]

12. Thanks, cali. It's a tendency I've observed (and am probably guilty of at times), but didn't know

the name of. It is difficult to accept and consider new information relevant to "emotionally charged issues and deeply entrenched beliefs", if the information does not confirm one's beliefs about those issues.

I have always believed that the republican base (as the main proponent of the use of fear and emotion, rather than science and evidence, to guide policy decisions) as the most guilty of "confirmation bias". For them "emotionally charged issues and deeply entrenched beliefs" range from Obama's birthplace to global warming, immigration reform, abortion, gay rights, etc. Their base has proven to be regularly susceptible to "belief perseverance" (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false) and "the irrational primacy effect" (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series).

It may be human nature to a large extent however, as it does seem to creep into DU as well - although not nearly to the same extent as with conservatives.

[rrneck]

14. This place couldn't exist without it.

There is no real difference between confirmation bias and emotional consensus.

[geek tragedy]

15. Its twin sibling is epistemic closure.

And any ideologically slanted website is going to have it in spades.