Understand Confirmation Bias Before You Regret

What Is Confirmation Bias And Why Is It A Problem?

What is Confirmation Bias ?

Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to prioritize information that confirms or reinforces their beliefs or values ​​and is difficult to remove once it has been established. 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek information that supports rather than reject it as bias, usually interpreting evidence to validate existing beliefs by rejecting or ignoring any conflicting evidence (American Psychological Association). 

Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to find, prioritize, interpret, and remember information in a way that validates their pre-existing beliefs. 

This means that confirmation bias forces people to interpret information in a way that confirms their beliefs, even if the information can be interpreted in ways that contradict them. This means that confirmation bias forces people to emphasize more information that supports their beliefs rather than information that contradicts them.   

When people tend to seek information to support their beliefs/hypotheses, confirmation bias occurs, but this bias can be reduced by considering alternative hypotheses and their consequences.

People tend to interpret new information in a way that supports their pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is called confirmation bias.

The key point confirms that bias is the tendency of people to actively seek, interpret, and store information that matches their preconceived ideas and beliefs. 

When people with opposing views partially explain new information, their views may diverge further. Even if two people have the same information, the way they interpret the information may be distorted. 

The process by which people make decisions and process information is often biased because people only interpret information from their perspective.

    

People need to quickly comprehend information, and it takes time to form new explanations or beliefs. Our beliefs are often based on paying attention to information that supports them,

while at the same time, we tend to ignore information that challenges them. Because of its role in helping us map social reality to our beliefs, affirmative bias is adaptive, at least I will say so. 

I will argue that affirmative bias associated with social beliefs strengthens our confidence in those beliefs, thereby reinforcing our tendencies towards behaviors that cause changes in reality in accordance with beliefs, transforming them (when they are inherently imprecise) into self-actualization.     

By helping us to align social affairs with our understanding of them, even if we disapprove of them, confirming bias also gives us significant epistemological advantages in social cognition.

 As a general tendency to support any one of one’s beliefs, rather than simply preferred ones, prejudices thus allow for a social ripple effect in the process of matching ascribed character traits to reality. 

The halo effect is closely related to confirmation bias, as in some cases it can be attributed to the tendency of people to confirm their initial impression of someone, subsequently forming part of the impression of him.

The social peer review process seeks to mitigate the effect of bias among individual scientists, although the peer review process may be susceptible to such biases.

Because prejudiced people may view the evidence to the contrary as weak in principle and give little thought to seriously reconsidering their beliefs.

Generally, evidence that contradicts preconceived notions is troubling and therefore ignored or little considered, while corroboration of evidence is accepted uncritically, or at least more readily. 

When looking for information to support their hypotheses or expectations, people tend to look for positive evidence that the hypothesis is correct, rather than information that would prove that a point of view is false if it is false.

People want to feel smart, and information that suggests that you have an inaccurate belief or that you made the wrong decision suggests that you lack intelligence.

People generate and evaluate evidence using arguments based on their own beliefs and opinions.

    

In light of this and other criticisms, the focus of research has shifted from confirming or refuting a hypothesis to examining whether people test hypotheses informatively or uninformatively but positively.

Experiments beginning in the 1960s revealed our tendency to validate existing beliefs rather than question them or seek new ones. 

Fortunately, there seems to be a better way to deal with the challenges of capturing our original beliefs, not being able to test those beliefs, and explaining inconvenient data: the concept of fixation.

    

Some people jokingly refer to this prejudice as selective recall, that is, a person only remembers information that confirms his current beliefs.

We are more likely to remember (and repeat) information that is consistent with stereotypes, and forget or ignore information that is inconsistent with stereotypes. 

This is a way to maintain stereotypes even in the face of unsubstantiated evidence. 

By not looking for objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and remembering only the details that support these beliefs, people often miss important information, otherwise this information may affect their decision to support a candidate.

  

Example Of Confirmation Bias

As investors seek information to support their existing opinions and ignore facts or data that disprove them, they can distort the value of their decisions based on their own cognitive biases.  Once an investor has gathered information to support his views and beliefs about a particular investment, he should look for alternative ideas that challenge his point of view.

 When researching investments, they may inadvertently seek or favor information that supports their preconceived notions of an asset or strategy, and not write down or underestimate any data that presents different or conflicting ideas.

 At the same time, they seek information to support these beliefs and opinions, thereby rejecting new conflicting information. 

They tend to accept evidence that supports what they already believe to be true and reject evidence that contradicts it. Even when people are exposed to questionable information, confirming bias can cause them to reject it and, conversely, become even more confident that their beliefs are correct.

Lawyers can help people draw distorted conclusions by asking leading questions. People are better able to process information rationally, giving equal weight to multiple points of view if they are emotionally distant from the problem (although low confirmation bias can still occur when the person has no vested interests).

Confirmation bias affects how clinicians make a clinical diagnosis because, after determining the initial diagnosis, they often selectively seek the most recent research or information to confirm it is correct, ignoring information they offer that their diagnosis may be wrong. 

A physician who has moved on to a specific hypothesis about what kind of disease a patient has can then ask questions and seek evidence that tends to support that diagnosis, while ignoring evidence that would usually refute it.    

This includes, for example, educating people about this bias, focusing discussions on finding the right answer instead of defending an existing belief, minimizing the hassle of the error, encouraging people to pay enough attention to the information and asking them to think about why their preferred hypothesis might be wrong or why competing hypotheses may be correct.

By interacting with people who, in their opinion, have certain personalities, they will ask questions to those people who biasedly support the beliefs of the recipients. 

In an influential 2002 peer-reviewed article, clinical psychologist Harriet Lerner and political psychologist Philip Tetlock postulate that when people interact with those whose opinions they know, they tend to take a similar position, which they then try to validate. 

Fits better into the group. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support their beliefs, but they will also interpret news in a way that supports their existing ideas and will remember things in a way that strengthens that relationship. 

This difference in information interpretation explains why research often fails to change the way people think about problems.

 By not looking for objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and remembering only the details that support these beliefs, people often miss important information, otherwise this information may affect their decision to support a candidate.

    

Confirmation bias is important because it can lead people to forcibly hold false beliefs or give more weight to information that supports their beliefs than the evidence supports.

 These examples illustrate the different ways in which people are influenced and show that this bias is widespread even among trained professionals, who are often assumed to be extremely rational about information. 

This leads to various types of cognitive biases that we use, consciously or unconsciously, in our daily lives. 

Thus, confirmation bias is an extremely useful survival instinct, but the problem with applying this cognitive skill in our modern world is that it can lead you to manipulate research in a way that only confirms your beliefs without offering conflicting information. …       

If you are like most people, you feel that your beliefs are rational, logical and impartial, based on years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have. 

The process of making decisions and processing information by people is often biased, because people simply interpret information from their point of view. 

People need to quickly comprehend information, and it takes time to form new explanations or beliefs. We do our best not to find information that could refute us or contradict our previous beliefs.

How Do You Identify Confirmation Bias?

Even if they read the same story, their bias tends to shape how they perceive details, further confirming their beliefs. A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s showed that people biasedly confirm their existing beliefs. 

Subsequent work has reinterpreted these results as a tendency to one-sided test of ideas, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives (bias to the side, an alternative name for confirmation bias.    

In light of this and other criticisms, the focus of research has shifted from confirming or refuting a hypothesis to examining whether people test hypotheses informatively or uninformatively but positively. 

Experiments beginning in the 1960s revealed our tendency to validate existing beliefs rather than question them or seek new ones. 

 But this bias can be reduced by considering alternative hypotheses and their consequences.

Importance Confirmation bias is important because it can cause people to forcibly hold false beliefs or give more weight to information that supports their beliefs than the evidence supports.

 Misinterpretation This type of bias explains that people interpret evidence against their existing beliefs, usually evaluating corroborating evidence differently than evidence that refutes their prejudice.

In an effort to simplify the world and bring it in line with our expectations, we have been gifted with the gift of cognitive bias. 

“The direct influence of desire on beliefs … motivated by wishful thinking … we accept information that confirms that vision, ignoring or rejecting information that calls into question … we can become our own captives. 

Guesses … wishful thinking … for being real is a form of self-deception … self-deception can be like a drug, making you numb to the harsh reality or turning a blind eye to a difficult question in order to gather evidence and think … it seems strong and illogical to seek evidence that contradicts our beliefs. 

When evidence is presented that contradicts a distorted opinion, we can still interpret it in such a way as to strengthen our current point of view.    

To combat this trend, scientific training teaches how to prevent prejudice. When people with opposing views interpret new information in part, their views may diverge even further. 

Even if two people have the same information, the way they interpret it can be distorted. People are better able to process information rationally, giving equal weight to multiple points of view if they are emotionally distant from the problem (although low confirmation bias can still occur when the person has no vested interests).    

In turn, such news spreads across all platforms, gaining in popularity as it confirms the existing beliefs of millions of people. We do not need to take science literally, and we need to be aware of the role of biased reporting.    

Ah, but for most people, attachment to a pair of conflicting beliefs causes cognitive dissonance, a condition of mental distress and discomfort that often interferes with functioning. 

By interacting with people who, in their opinion, have certain personalities, they will ask questions to those people who biasedly support the beliefs of the recipients. 

In an influential 2002 peer-reviewed article, clinical psychologist Harriet Lerner and political psychologist Philip Tetlock postulate that when people interact with those whose opinions they know, they tend to take a similar position, which they then try to validate. fits better into the group.

    

    

Leave a Comment