I need help overcoming confirmation bias

[KingMerv00]

Over the last 6 or 7 years, I've grown more confident in my beliefs on things like evolution, religion, CTs, etc. Early on, I had no trouble reading opposing POVs and even enjoyed the process of self-discovery and critical thought. Lately though, I have noticed that I can no longer stand to hear the opinions of IDers or theists when they argue in favor of their positions.

Just the other day, I was listening to the Hitchens v. Hitchens debate (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg&feature=related) and I found myself skipping ahead everytime Peter Hitchens approached the podium and tried to get me to praise Odin (or whatever). It actually made me feel physically ill to listen to his opinion. Of course, the bits I did hear were the same old arguments I've always heard but I feel like I'm letting myself down by not challenging my beliefs on a regular basis.

I am afraid I will wall myself away from criticism and become as dogmatic as those I despise. Has anyone else dealt with this? How do you get around it?

[MasQuater]

Are you talking ID vs Evolution debates? Sorry, not my field of interest neither do I tune in to this much anyways, as it is pretty difficult to fit science into the box.

EDIT: Or rather how old is the creation story anyways 2,500-3,000 years old? Pardon me lack of scholar knowledge.

[Kochanski]

KingMerv, I think that as long as you are aware that you, like every human, are prone to confirmation bias and as long as you do your best to guard against it you will be fine.

When you have heard the same tired arguments trotted out over and over it is very hard to listen to them. Unfortunately with much woo-woo that is all we will get because they cling to them tenaciously. Just try to listen a little bit to see if there is anything new said, however unlikely.

If you wish to challenge your beliefs then explore the real research that is being done in the fields. See what science is doing on the subjects. That should provide challenge, because you know that the woo-woos are unlikely to provide that challenge.

[KingMerv00]

Are you talking ID vs Evolution debates? Sorry, not my field of interest neither do I tune in to this much anyways, as it is pretty difficult to fit science into the box.

Not just ID and Evo stuff, I'm just sick of woo in general i think. It is a lot easier if I am talking to someone one on one though. Being able to respond makes it fun.

EDIT: Or rather how old is the creation story anyways 2,500-3,000 years old? Pardon me lack of scholar knowledge.

The fiction varies. 6,000 to 10,000 is typical for Young earthers.

[devnull]

I dont mind listening to the same old ID arguments, as long as they are offering a new spin or some extra evidence.

If I see Kirk Cameron and his duckodile picture one more time though, Ill go postal.

[fls]

I practice asking those questions which counteract confirmation bias until they are second nature. Ask what sort of information would disconfirm or contradict your argument. Consider how you would view the argument if your positions were switched - how would you feel about a particular kind of evidence if it were coming from your side vs. their side. Don't spend time reviewing the stupider arguments coming from their side - focus on the best arguments they have. It's okay to be dismissive of tired old arguments you have already considered - if you keep listening to them I think it's easier to become jaded and cynical. Practice changing your mind.

Linda

[vIQleS]

KingMerv, I think that as long as you are aware that you, like every human, are prone to confirmation bias and as long as you do your best to guard against it you will be fine.

I agree - the fact that you are aware of the possiblility is an excellent start. And the fact that you're asking suggests to me that you are much less likely to get caught out then most, and that's probably enough.

I got accused by a friend of mine the other day of "not being able to see other people's points of view". When I got a bit indignant about that she admitted that she had chosen her words poorly and that isnt what she meant - just that I hold my opinions hard, and I'm not shy about sharing them.

It gets to a point where you pretty much start saying - "oh psychics... that's a load of crap." Without even bothering to listen to what anyone has to say... But I'm sure that given the right evidence, any one of us would be wiling to reconsider any belief no matter how firmly held.

I dont mind listening to the same old ID arguments, as long as they are offering a new spin or some extra evidence.

If I see Kirk Cameron and his duckodile picture one more time though, Ill go postal.


http://neodian.blogsome.com/images/KirkCameron.jpg
http://www.wheelchairanglingandhamradio.co.uk/clonedpictures/Duck_crocodile.jpg
:D

[KingMerv00]

http://neodian.blogsome.com/images/KirkCameron.jpg
http://www.wheelchairanglingandhamradio.co.uk/clonedpictures/Duck_crocodile.jpg
:D

I can't decide which is more of an affront to nature.

[kosai]

KingMerv I agree with you hearing opposing arguments is very important. My suggestion is install Skype from www.skype.com and check out skypecasts here:

https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/ongoing

It's like woo interactive, you can't fast foward, and you get to yell at people. It's a lot of fun and I learn the latest of woo from the woo-believers themselves. They'll shoot you down a few times when you don't know their new woo belief and they are "well read" on "scientific" books they got off of Amazon, but you get to go and retool your arguments and join the cast the next night ready to fight them again. If you decide to check it out, drop me a PM.

[JoeEllison]

It isn't confirmation bias if they are simply repeating previously debunked nonsense. You have to worry when they actually present something NEW.

[remirol]

It isn't confirmation bias if they are simply repeating previously debunked nonsense. You have to worry when they actually present something NEW.

Agreed. Confirmation bias would be refusing to listen to _any_ arguments in favor of (for example) psychic powers, because "the issue's already decided"; or, more accurately, assuming that even arguments you haven't heard before are de facto false, simply because all previous arguments you've heard have been shown to be.

Allowing a woo to begin presenting an argument and then ignoring it because it's one you've already heard and refuted is totally different; it's pruning the tree for the sake of your own sanity.

[CFLarsen]

to praise Odin

...you got a problem with Odin?

:viking1

[Fiona]

It is a lot easier if I am talking to someone one on one though. Being able to respond makes it fun.

I think this is the important part. One on one the arguments can be really explored and tested: and you are still interested in doing this. When the arguments are in the form of a "set piece" then there is little or no chance that either party will change their mind - that is not the point of formal "debate" of this sort. If you are lucky you get two truly opposed people who have the best possible arguments for their position and you might learn somthing. More often you get people who may or may not truly believe what they are saying and their purpose is to sway the audience and so win a vote. In those cases there is only a game and nothing is off limits if it is persuasive whether it would stand up to prolonged scrutiny or not. If a sound bite is clever and superficially persuasive it is in, for example. There is nothing much to be gained from this if you are reasonably interested in the subject and have formed an opinion after reading and listening for a while.

I do recognise the anxiety you outline and I agree we must keep challenging our positions. But I do not think you are in much danger from what you have said so far :)

[vidiviciveni]

I dont mind listening to the same old ID arguments, as long as they are offering a new spin or some extra evidence.

If I see Kirk Cameron and his duckodile picture one more time though, Ill go postal.


Cectic hears all...


http://cectic.com/134.html :D

[Dancing David]

Over the last 6 or 7 years, I've grown more confident in my beliefs on things like evolution, religion, CTs, etc. Early on, I had no trouble reading opposing POVs and even enjoyed the process of self-discovery and critical thought. Lately though, I have noticed that I can no longer stand to hear the opinions of IDers or theists when they argue in favor of their positions.

Just the other day, I was listening to the Hitchens v. Hitchens debate (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg&feature=related) and I found myself skipping ahead everytime Peter Hitchens approached the podium and tried to get me to praise Odin (or whatever). It actually made me feel physically ill to listen to his opinion. Of course, the bits I did hear were the same old arguments I've always heard but I feel like I'm letting myself down by not challenging my beliefs on a regular basis.

I am afraid I will wall myself away from criticism and become as dogmatic as those I despise. Has anyone else dealt with this? How do you get around it?

There are different dishes at the table, sometimes it is okay to say "I have had enough chicken guts stuffed with mouse turds" and not eat anymore. ;)

[Dancing David]

...you got a problem with Odin?

:viking1

Yeah, I saw his eyeball at Mimir's pawn shop.

[H'ethetheth]

I'm actually experiencing the opposite at the moment. I've finally gotten round to reading the God delusion. I'm actually finding myself reading impatiently through arguments I've heard a thousand times before, not in the least because of you guys and gals here. So thanks, I guess...

[Jeff Corey]

I'm actually experiencing the opposite at the moment. I've finally gotten round to reading the God delusion. I'm actually finding myself reading impatiently through arguments I've heard a thousand times before, not in the least because of you guys and gals here. So thanks, I guess...

I had the same problem with the god Delusion, the third or so time that he made the point that there are no christian, etc. children.

[KingMerv00]

...you got a problem with Odin?

:viking1

Yea. He won't stop winking at me.

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Confirmation bias would be refusing to listen to _any_ arguments in favor of (for example) psychic powers, because "the issue's already decided"; or, more accurately, assuming that even arguments you haven't heard before are de facto false, simply because all previous arguments you've heard have been shown to be.

That's just it, if I don't listen how will I know if there are new arguments?

[Dancing David]

Yea. He won't stop winking at me.

Oh, oh, is he tapping your foot with his foot?

[KingMerv00]

Oh, oh, is he tapping your foot with his foot?

On a related note, do NOT go into stall next to Sleipnir.

[bjornart]

I have the same problem (I think), only I don't see it as a step towards dogmatism. It's just a bad case of pre-emptive frustration.

[articulett]

I remember at TAM 5 Randi was talking about the Korean show with "real psychics" like "he had never seen before..."

He was kind of eager to see something new... but he was disappointed to learn it was the "same old crap as always!".

People do use the same techniques to convince themselves of whatever it is they want to be true... or to try and fool others that they have access to "special powers". It usually involves some sort of nebulous "higher truth", assorted aspersions cast at non-belief, and "experiences they can't explain"... but we'd never be able to understand anyhow, because "you have to have faith"... --oh yeah, and the person who doesn't believe in divine truths is always called arrogant.

I have a hard time listening to it myself; believers sound so deluded and, well, --even stupid to me. Heck, I probably argued that way myself at one time... at least in my head. (I was pretty much a skeptic by the time the internet came around.) Their arguments and the questions they avoid just make them seem so transparent to me. They never really even have a point as they trot out whatever inane platitude or false dichotomy that supposedly convinced them.

Sometimes I look for the hidden belief the woo won't say--the hidden belief they are trying to protect from scrutiny... the one belief they must keep lest their whole delusion shatter.

But, for the most part, I prefer talking about woo than talking to woo. I don't find them particularly good conversationalists. They seem to desperately need you to believe or respect them, but they offer nothing... and end up flinging ad homs when you tell them what you really think of their missives. I probably shouldn't listen to such debates, because a lot of believers are really nice and trusting people... but the blowhards in these debates make me think less of believers as a group.

I don't want to be an audience for someone to spin their delusion in front of.

[Whiplash]

I can't decide which is more of an affront to nature.

Have you seen his wife? How does someone like him end up with someone so lovely? Ok, she shares his stupid view points, so I guess that answers it. But when I first saw her (in a Seinfeld episode called The English Patient), I was blown away to find she was married to that git.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/cloud_ten/left_behind_ii__tribulation_force/chelsea_noble/left3.jpg

[CFLarsen]

I remember at TAM 5 Randi was talking about the Korean show with "real psychics" like "he had never seen before..."

He was kind of eager to see something new... but he was disappointed to learn it was the "same old crap as always!".

People do use the same techniques to convince themselves of whatever it is they want to be true... or to try and fool others that they have access to "special powers". It usually involves some sort of nebulous "higher truth", assorted aspersions cast at non-belief, and "experiences they can't explain"... but we'd never be able to understand anyhow, because "you have to have faith"... --oh yeah, and the person who doesn't believe in divine truths is always called arrogant.

I have a hard time listening to it myself; believers sound so deluded and, well, --even stupid to me. Heck, I probably argued that way myself at one time... at least in my head. (I was pretty much a skeptic by the time the internet came around.) Their arguments and the questions they avoid just make them seem so transparent to me. They never really even have a point as they trot out whatever inane platitude or false dichotomy that supposedly convinced them.

Sometimes I look for the hidden belief the woo won't say--the hidden belief they are trying to protect from scrutiny... the one belief they must keep lest their whole delusion shatter.

But, for the most part, I prefer talking about woo than talking to woo. I don't find them particularly good conversationalists. They seem to desperately need you to believe or respect them, but they offer nothing... and end up flinging ad homs when you tell them what you really think of their missives. I probably shouldn't listen to such debates, because a lot of believers are really nice and trusting people... but the blowhards in these debates make me think less of believers as a group.

I don't want to be an audience for someone to spin their delusion in front of.

You would rather talk about woos than talk to them? You think it is a bad idea that Randi faces the woos?

Personally, I prefer to know exactly what beliefs I am fighting, instead of relying on my own assumptions.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the problem with so many woo arguments is that to accept them at face value would require the dismantling of the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry.

Typically an argument for <insert woo idea here> does not just require you to accept the truth of the claim, but disregard large chunks of knowledge you use to understand how the world works. That is unless you can perform the trick of holding two or more logically conflicting concepts in your head at the same time.

[I Ratant]

"Typically an argument for <insert woo idea here> does not just require you to accept the truth of the claim, but disregard large chunks of knowledge you use to understand how the world works."
.
No. it's like knowing there's nothing there, and having to argue that there's nothing to the claim at all. Respect for the claim isn't a requirement.
Just try to keep some measure of respect for the claimant.
That does erode though, when the silly twit fails to see your brilliance in your rebuttal. :)
The illegitima will carborundum you after enough of them trot the -same- silly ideas, post after post after post.
The supply of idiots is endless.

[articulett]

I feel like the rational side is so much smarter... I sometimes end up feeling sorry for the believer and this idea that they believe they must "defend faith".

I prefer to talk about them then to talk to them. They are afraid to lose the faith, after all. They feel special and chosen and "in on" a divine secret for having "faith".

It's okay to talk "about" them isn't it? I think their egos can handle it, and I'm tired of having to pretend to care about their feelings when they don't even consider whether I have any. Most of them do have rather strong judgments about those who don't believe in their woo, after all.

4tRpbkpNpgw

Did anyone watch the whole debate with Hitchens vs. Hitchens? If so, what did they think?

[NonCleverName]

Over the last 6 or 7 years, I've grown more confident in my beliefs on things like evolution, religion, CTs, etc. Early on, I had no trouble reading opposing POVs and even enjoyed the process of self-discovery and critical thought. Lately though, I have noticed that I can no longer stand to hear the opinions of IDers or theists when they argue in favor of their positions.

Just the other day, I was listening to the Hitchens v. Hitchens debate (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg&feature=related) and I found myself skipping ahead everytime Peter Hitchens approached the podium and tried to get me to praise Odin (or whatever). It actually made me feel physically ill to listen to his opinion. Of course, the bits I did hear were the same old arguments I've always heard but I feel like I'm letting myself down by not challenging my beliefs on a regular basis.

I am afraid I will wall myself away from criticism and become as dogmatic as those I despise. Has anyone else dealt with this? How do you get around it?

Maybe you need to wake up a little and realize that this woo crap is bullsh*t? Do I need to consider the possibility of giant lizards from Mars every now and then so I don't get stuck in my belief that there are no giant lizards on Mars? No.

[The Man]

Maybe you need to wake up a little and realize that this woo crap is bullsh*t? Do I need to consider the possibility of giant lizards from Mars every now and then so I don't get stuck in my belief that there are no giant lizards on Mars? No.

No you do not need to consider it, but doing so and understanding the consequences required for that consideration might help you to convince someone (if not yourself) that there are no giant lizards on Mars.

Person 1 : If there are giant lizards on Mars why have we not seen them?

Person 2 : Maybe they’re scared and hide whenever one of the rovers is in the vicinity?

Person 1 : If they are hiding then we should be able to find some sign of their presence like big steaming piles of giant lizard crap?

Person 2 : Maybe they dig holes and bury it?

Person 1 : If they are burying their crap they why don’t we find evidence of recently dug holes filled with giant lizard crap?

Person 2 : Maybe they do something else with it?

Person 1 : If they are doing something else with it then what are they eating to produce this crap?

Person 2 : Maybe they eat whatever they can find?

Person 1 : If there was something to eat on mars, why haven’t we found it yet?

Person 2 : Maybe they’re eating each other and / or their own crap?

Person 1 : That’s a good point; I’ll post that on my website tomorrow.

The truth is the more BS you hear or the more giant Martian lizard crap someone tries to feed you, the more disgusted you are likely to get. But I would not go so far as to call it confirmation bias. As long as you don’t end up feeding off of your own crap (or anyone else's).

[Dogdoctor]

You are already questioning yourself which is what every skeptic does. Whatever knowledge we have it isn't the ultimate truth and only represents the best we have been able to come up with so far. So you should seek to learn more always. In addition if you automatically dismiss someone it's likely you won't be able to convince them of anything. I have trouble reading stuff like Behe's Black Box. I read it anyway to learn what points he had to make. I don't think having trouble reading a point of view that you have disagree with means you are becoming dogmatic unless you actually don't read it.

[Rasmus]

That's just it, if I don't listen how will I know if there are new arguments?

The first working dowsing rod, the first successful homoeopathic treatment of cancer, the first verified astral projection will most certainly not be announced to the world on a stupid website, late at night in a pub, your local pharmacy, a church or at the water cooler in the office.

If every single newspaper screams it at you, it might be time to listen. Likewise, if god wanted you to believe in him, bloody letters and flaming bushes are the medium du jour he communicates with.

Everything else, you can safely ignore. You won't miss anything.

[buzz lightyear]

Over the last 6 or 7 years, I've grown more confident in my beliefs on things like evolution, religion, CTs, etc. Early on, I had no trouble reading opposing POVs and even enjoyed the process of self-discovery and critical thought. Lately though, I have noticed that I can no longer stand to hear the opinions of IDers or theists when they argue in favor of their positions.

Just the other day, I was listening to the Hitchens v. Hitchens debate (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg&feature=related) and I found myself skipping ahead everytime Peter Hitchens approached the podium and tried to get me to praise Odin (or whatever). It actually made me feel physically ill to listen to his opinion. Of course, the bits I did hear were the same old arguments I've always heard but I feel like I'm letting myself down by not challenging my beliefs on a regular basis.

I am afraid I will wall myself away from criticism and become as dogmatic as those I despise. Has anyone else dealt with this? How do you get around it?

To hang around with the same old skeptic crew is a bit like hanging around the pub with a bunch of the inmates discussing the merits of alcohol.

The best way to find the truth, KingMerv00 is "to walk a mile in my shoes" as the song goes.

Participate in a meditation session.
Do a bit of drumming in a sweat lodge.
Take some ayuascha in the amazon.
Whirl with the dervishes.

And at the end if you found nothing at least you have looked.

[JoeEllison]

That's just it, if I don't listen how will I know if there are new arguments?

I think it is also relatively safe to ignore people who have never provided anything useful in the past. If their argument is novel and useful, you'll hear about it eventually.