confirmation bias for the good of all?

quarky · 30th December 2010, 11:19 AM

The various placebo threads have me pondering ethical quandaries regarding confirmation bias, which, in my world, is the mechanical version of the placebo effect; yet possibly less 'touchy' because it doesn't implicate the A.M.A. or anything.

An example:

A good friend got sucked into a rig on his car that uses gasoline to generate current to break elemental bonds in water molecules, and feeds the H2 into the engine.
I expressed my opinion of the technology; he got angry with me.
I asked for evidence, because I couldn't help it.
He supplied some.

It was all true!
Because of his need to see the magic in the device he spent $99.99 plus tax on, he modified his driving behavior. He was inspired to keep his truck well-tuned; tire pressure right; lube, etc.
And no more quick accelerations or decelerations.

The woo was the bait that improved his truck's performance.
Yet, it did improve.
The need to prove an unprovable point can have very positive side-effects on a life, via confirmation-bias.

On the medical, placebo version, if you've sold yourself on ginseng, and would like to sell it to others, you may tend to exercise a lot; eat well; glow with energy that may have little to do with the herb.

And yet, it has everything to do with the herb; H2 car device; woo.
The woo is a catalyst.

It seems that it should be encouraged, in some cases.
Whatever it takes to illicit initial, positive changes in behavior?
Thinking like a chemist, reactions happen between appropriate molecules.
Often, a synthesis requires many steps.

crud.

I'm defending woo again, aren't I.

Capsid · 31st December 2010, 02:47 AM

That's fine, but the woo proponents don't market their products that way and charge a lot of money for false claims.

fls · 1st January 2011, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

The various placebo threads have me pondering ethical quandaries regarding confirmation bias, which, in my world, is the mechanical version of the placebo effect; yet possibly less 'touchy' because it doesn't implicate the A.M.A. or anything.

An example:

A good friend got sucked into a rig on his car that uses gasoline to generate current to break elemental bonds in water molecules, and feeds the H2 into the engine.
I expressed my opinion of the technology; he got angry with me.
I asked for evidence, because I couldn't help it.
He supplied some.

It was all true!
Because of his need to see the magic in the device he spent $99.99 plus tax on, he modified his driving behavior. He was inspired to keep his truck well-tuned; tire pressure right; lube, etc.
And no more quick accelerations or decelerations.

The woo was the bait that improved his truck's performance.
Yet, it did improve.
The need to prove an unprovable point can have very positive side-effects on a life, via confirmation-bias.

On the medical, placebo version, if you've sold yourself on ginseng, and would like to sell it to others, you may tend to exercise a lot; eat well; glow with energy that may have little to do with the herb.

And yet, it has everything to do with the herb; H2 car device; woo.
The woo is a catalyst.

It seems that it should be encouraged, in some cases.
Whatever it takes to illicit initial, positive changes in behavior?
Thinking like a chemist, reactions happen between appropriate molecules.
Often, a synthesis requires many steps.

crud.

I'm defending woo again, aren't I.

And this also comes back to your post on distraction rituals.

There isn't really any connection between placebo and this effect, except that placebo use can serve as one example of how to generate this effect. But I have suggested numerous times that there is no reason to presume that this effect can only be got at through deceit, or that deceit is an efficient way to achieve it. If what we are actually interested in is the altered behavior, it makes more sense to investigate efficiently altering behavior than to use it as a justification for unpalatable and deceptive practices.

Linda

Delvo · 1st January 2011, 06:34 AM

What you're talking about is not confirmation bias.

macdoc · 1st January 2011, 08:30 AM

I concur.
••

Qrky - there is some small truth in his claim.....electrolysis is simple enough and the generator is spinning anyway
There is some evidence ( gasoline enriched with nitrogen claims as another approach ) that H does improve combustion in a couple of ways.

Your example has some foundation in reality tho actual outcomes may be more as you describe. Use of a catalyst in the conversion could improve things.
Still 99.999999 % hype with a tiny kernel of science base.
In this case the "more careful driving/maintenance" outcome is a positive result even if for different reasons than the driver thinks

The heart of the claim is more efficient burn based on this...

Quote:

The most common automotive fuel, gasoline, is not composed of uniform hydrocarbon molecules. Gasoline is actually a mixture of many different compounds that are distilled from crude oil. These various compounds vaporize at different temperatures (or boiling points at which the liquid changes to a vapor).
Some parts of gasoline vaporize very easily at low temperatures to help get a cold engine started. These are the vapors you smell when you are filling your gas tank. Other parts have a much higher boiling point to prevent the fuel from vaporizing in your tank or in the fuel lines enroute to the engine.
As a result only part of the fuel entering the combustion chambers is in a combustible state. The ignition of the gasoline-air mixture is slow and in fact incomplete which is why you smell hydrocarbons escaping your tail pipe and why the EPA requires a catalytic converter.
The addition of hydroxy gas through the air intake system results in a flash burn,
completely igniting the hydrocarbon fuel. This results in increase power and torque and greatly reduced emissions. This gives the driver two options, enjoy the increase in power or throttle back and save gas.

quarky · 1st January 2011, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

What you're talking about is not confirmation bias.

How so? Educate me?

Delvo · 2nd January 2011, 09:23 PM

Bias is a matter of how you interpret the available facts. Taking action to affect the facts in the real world is not a matter of how you interpret them.

I'm about to clean some dishes. That's taking action. Bias would only be a possibility if I were describing the current state of the dishes.

Miss_Kitt · 3rd January 2011, 01:42 AM

I don't think this is what the OP was intending at all, but in a sense confirmation bias probably does exist 'for the good of all'--in that for a social animal selective observation that reinforces one's existing place in the pack is a positive trait.

Most of the time, tending to perceive tribe members as "good" and outsiders as "bad" would be a plus; tending to see one's offspring as cute and loving would contribute to better child-rearing; perceiving the partner as a good partner would strengthen the pair-bond, and so on. Optimists are less likely to have stress-related health issues than pessimists in the same circumstances, because they aren't triggering those hormonal responses that over the long term are hard on the blood pressure, stomach lining, etc. Going even further back in human history, seeing risk where there is none is a lot safer than not seeing risks that do exist; the imaginary lion may not be there, but ignoring subtle clues of a real lion can be a fatal mistake.

One of the interesting questions of how to adapt to a world where factual knowledge is being folded into the life choices of people who are hard-wired to make good guesses is how to ethically push people to make valid choices. As a wife, I've wondered how to get my husband to make better eating and exercise decisions; heck, I wonder how to make myself do that. Today we ordered the rowing machine we've been talking about--because my ex-husband had to go to the hospital with chest pain. Logical? No, but sometimes it's smart to take motivation where you can find it.*

There are helpful and harmful rituals, traditions, and habits. If used as an aid to begin (or persist in)activities that are rationally good for people, they can be a positive. Part of the 'magic' of Weight Watchers is that it is a modern ritual, it establishes a community, it provides praise for good choices and forgiveness for bad ones, and encouragement to pursue the chosen path. But unlike Lenten dietary restrictions, the actual prescribed changes in foods eaten, and of quantities consumed, has a real scientific basis. Part of the doctrine of WW is that you should focus on your successes, not dwell on your failures. (In fact, they talk about converting 'failures' to 'learning opportunities'.) This is an example of inculcating a certain amount of confirmation bias to gain motivation.

Bias is an problem when it is not recognized and the remembered experience is assumed to reflect reality. Thus a person who changes their driving habits to 'justify' the money they spent on a non-functioning mechanical adaption to their car is saving gas; but if they simply changed behavior AND saved the money, hassle, and possible mechanical problems with the engine in the future that the device entailed, they'd be better off still. Most of all, if they credit the device and not their behavioral changes with the positive result, they are setting themselves up to buy into the next piece of pseudo-scientific gadgetry they encounter.

Just my thoughts, MK

* To clarify: Deciding to get exercising more is a rational decision; acting because someone with different lifestyle and dietary habits had angina, is not. His heart risks are not related to ours anymore than any other person his age is; but it *felt* "close to home" so we took action.

fls · 3rd January 2011, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Bias is a matter of how you interpret the available facts. Taking action to affect the facts in the real world is not a matter of how you interpret them.

I'm about to clean some dishes. That's taking action. Bias would only be a possibility if I were describing the current state of the dishes.

For a small range of biases included under the "confirmation" umbrella.

Also considered under "confirmation bias" is our tendency to look for confirmatory information, rather than looking for information which falsifies the idea. We tend to say "what would I expect to see if the idea is true?" and go looking for that, forgetting all about "what would I see if the idea is false?" That's describing an action.

It isn't clear whether quarky is describing the act of seeking only information which confirms the idea, or describing an attribution (attributing the benefit to the intervention) or affirmation (a tendency to say "yes" when asked a question) bias. It doesn't matter, though. These all get put into the category of "confirmation bias" (although one can quibble over whether they all belong). It looks like she/he is describing an attribution bias, which certainly fits your claim that it's about the way you interpret data.

Linda

quarky · 3rd January 2011, 07:09 AM

In the case of the guy that bought the woo-device for his car, it is certainly true that it would be better if he could simply move straight to more effective behavior to save gas.
Perhaps this will be the end result, but meanwhile, the sub-conscious bias gets the ball rolling. We often get started as skeptics through a belief in magic. Eventually, we learn about slight of hand.

30th December 2010, 11:19 AM	#1
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	confirmation bias for the good of all? The various placebo threads have me pondering ethical quandaries regarding confirmation bias, which, in my world, is the mechanical version of the placebo effect; yet possibly less 'touchy' because it doesn't implicate the A.M.A. or anything. An example: A good friend got sucked into a rig on his car that uses gasoline to generate current to break elemental bonds in water molecules, and feeds the H2 into the engine. I expressed my opinion of the technology; he got angry with me. I asked for evidence, because I couldn't help it. He supplied some. It was all true! Because of his need to see the magic in the device he spent $99.99 plus tax on, he modified his driving behavior. He was inspired to keep his truck well-tuned; tire pressure right; lube, etc. And no more quick accelerations or decelerations. The woo was the bait that improved his truck's performance. Yet, it did improve. The need to prove an unprovable point can have very positive side-effects on a life, via confirmation-bias. On the medical, placebo version, if you've sold yourself on ginseng, and would like to sell it to others, you may tend to exercise a lot; eat well; glow with energy that may have little to do with the herb. And yet, it has everything to do with the herb; H2 car device; woo. The woo is a catalyst. It seems that it should be encouraged, in some cases. Whatever it takes to illicit initial, positive changes in behavior? Thinking like a chemist, reactions happen between appropriate molecules. Often, a synthesis requires many steps. crud. I'm defending woo again, aren't I.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

31st December 2010, 02:47 AM	#2
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,506	That's fine, but the woo proponents don't market their products that way and charge a lot of money for false claims.
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,506

1st January 2011, 05:56 AM	#3
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by quarky The various placebo threads have me pondering ethical quandaries regarding confirmation bias, which, in my world, is the mechanical version of the placebo effect; yet possibly less 'touchy' because it doesn't implicate the A.M.A. or anything. An example: A good friend got sucked into a rig on his car that uses gasoline to generate current to break elemental bonds in water molecules, and feeds the H2 into the engine. I expressed my opinion of the technology; he got angry with me. I asked for evidence, because I couldn't help it. He supplied some. It was all true! Because of his need to see the magic in the device he spent $99.99 plus tax on, he modified his driving behavior. He was inspired to keep his truck well-tuned; tire pressure right; lube, etc. And no more quick accelerations or decelerations. The woo was the bait that improved his truck's performance. Yet, it did improve. The need to prove an unprovable point can have very positive side-effects on a life, via confirmation-bias. On the medical, placebo version, if you've sold yourself on ginseng, and would like to sell it to others, you may tend to exercise a lot; eat well; glow with energy that may have little to do with the herb. And yet, it has everything to do with the herb; H2 car device; woo. The woo is a catalyst. It seems that it should be encouraged, in some cases. Whatever it takes to illicit initial, positive changes in behavior? Thinking like a chemist, reactions happen between appropriate molecules. Often, a synthesis requires many steps. crud. I'm defending woo again, aren't I. And this also comes back to your post on distraction rituals. There isn't really any connection between placebo and this effect, except that placebo use can serve as one example of how to generate this effect. But I have suggested numerous times that there is no reason to presume that this effect can only be got at through deceit, or that deceit is an efficient way to achieve it. If what we are actually interested in is the altered behavior, it makes more sense to investigate efficiently altering behavior than to use it as a justification for unpalatable and deceptive practices. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you. Last edited by fls; 1st January 2011 at 06:00 AM.

1st January 2011, 08:30 AM	#5
macdoc Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 4,602	I concur. •• Qrky - there is some small truth in his claim.....electrolysis is simple enough and the generator is spinning anyway There is some evidence ( gasoline enriched with nitrogen claims as another approach ) that H does improve combustion in a couple of ways. Your example has some foundation in reality tho actual outcomes may be more as you describe. Use of a catalyst in the conversion could improve things. Still 99.999999 % hype with a tiny kernel of science base. In this case the "more careful driving/maintenance" outcome is a positive result even if for different reasons than the driver thinks The heart of the claim is more efficient burn based on this... Quote: The most common automotive fuel, gasoline, is not composed of uniform hydrocarbon molecules. Gasoline is actually a mixture of many different compounds that are distilled from crude oil. These various compounds vaporize at different temperatures (or boiling points at which the liquid changes to a vapor). Some parts of gasoline vaporize very easily at low temperatures to help get a cold engine started. These are the vapors you smell when you are filling your gas tank. Other parts have a much higher boiling point to prevent the fuel from vaporizing in your tank or in the fuel lines enroute to the engine. As a result only part of the fuel entering the combustion chambers is in a combustible state. The ignition of the gasoline-air mixture is slow and in fact incomplete which is why you smell hydrocarbons escaping your tail pipe and why the EPA requires a catalytic converter. The addition of hydroxy gas through the air intake system results in a flash burn, completely igniting the hydrocarbon fuel. This results in increase power and torque and greatly reduced emissions. This gives the driver two options, enjoy the increase in power or throttle back and save gas.
	__________________ Mainstream climate science sources others have found useful. http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.ph...5753#Post45753 Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009

1st January 2011, 10:50 AM	#6
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by Delvo What you're talking about is not confirmation bias. How so? Educate me?
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

1st January 2011, 06:34 AM	#4
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,884	What you're talking about is not confirmation bias.

2nd January 2011, 09:23 PM	#7
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,884	Bias is a matter of how you interpret the available facts. Taking action to affect the facts in the real world is not a matter of how you interpret them. I'm about to clean some dishes. That's taking action. Bias would only be a possibility if I were describing the current state of the dishes.

3rd January 2011, 01:42 AM	#8
Miss_Kitt Zombie Horse of Homeopathy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lesser Seattle Posts: 3,625	I don't think this is what the OP was intending at all, but in a sense confirmation bias probably does exist 'for the good of all'--in that for a social animal selective observation that reinforces one's existing place in the pack is a positive trait. Most of the time, tending to perceive tribe members as "good" and outsiders as "bad" would be a plus; tending to see one's offspring as cute and loving would contribute to better child-rearing; perceiving the partner as a good partner would strengthen the pair-bond, and so on. Optimists are less likely to have stress-related health issues than pessimists in the same circumstances, because they aren't triggering those hormonal responses that over the long term are hard on the blood pressure, stomach lining, etc. Going even further back in human history, seeing risk where there is none is a lot safer than not seeing risks that do exist; the imaginary lion may not be there, but ignoring subtle clues of a real lion can be a fatal mistake. One of the interesting questions of how to adapt to a world where factual knowledge is being folded into the life choices of people who are hard-wired to make good guesses is how to ethically push people to make valid choices. As a wife, I've wondered how to get my husband to make better eating and exercise decisions; heck, I wonder how to make myself do that. Today we ordered the rowing machine we've been talking about--because my ex-husband had to go to the hospital with chest pain. Logical? No, but sometimes it's smart to take motivation where you can find it.* There are helpful and harmful rituals, traditions, and habits. If used as an aid to begin (or persist in)activities that are rationally good for people, they can be a positive. Part of the 'magic' of Weight Watchers is that it is a modern ritual, it establishes a community, it provides praise for good choices and forgiveness for bad ones, and encouragement to pursue the chosen path. But unlike Lenten dietary restrictions, the actual prescribed changes in foods eaten, and of quantities consumed, has a real scientific basis. Part of the doctrine of WW is that you should focus on your successes, not dwell on your failures. (In fact, they talk about converting 'failures' to 'learning opportunities'.) This is an example of inculcating a certain amount of confirmation bias to gain motivation. Bias is an problem when it is not recognized and the remembered experience is assumed to reflect reality. Thus a person who changes their driving habits to 'justify' the money they spent on a non-functioning mechanical adaption to their car is saving gas; but if they simply changed behavior AND saved the money, hassle, and possible mechanical problems with the engine in the future that the device entailed, they'd be better off still. Most of all, if they credit the device and not their behavioral changes with the positive result, they are setting themselves up to buy into the next piece of pseudo-scientific gadgetry they encounter. Just my thoughts, MK * To clarify: Deciding to get exercising more is a rational decision; acting because someone with different lifestyle and dietary habits had angina, is not. His heart risks are not related to ours anymore than any other person his age is; but it felt "close to home" so we took action.
	__________________ It's much better to live an honest life than a delusional one -- desertgal Magic thinking is a lead personal floatation device. It looks really reassuring, but it will drag you down--whatthebutlersaw

3rd January 2011, 03:42 AM	#9
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Delvo Bias is a matter of how you interpret the available facts. Taking action to affect the facts in the real world is not a matter of how you interpret them. I'm about to clean some dishes. That's taking action. Bias would only be a possibility if I were describing the current state of the dishes. For a small range of biases included under the "confirmation" umbrella. Also considered under "confirmation bias" is our tendency to look for confirmatory information, rather than looking for information which falsifies the idea. We tend to say "what would I expect to see if the idea is true?" and go looking for that, forgetting all about "what would I see if the idea is false?" That's describing an action. It isn't clear whether quarky is describing the act of seeking only information which confirms the idea, or describing an attribution (attributing the benefit to the intervention) or affirmation (a tendency to say "yes" when asked a question) bias. It doesn't matter, though. These all get put into the category of "confirmation bias" (although one can quibble over whether they all belong). It looks like she/he is describing an attribution bias, which certainly fits your claim that it's about the way you interpret data. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you. Last edited by fls; 3rd January 2011 at 03:44 AM.

3rd January 2011, 07:09 AM	#10
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	In the case of the guy that bought the woo-device for his car, it is certainly true that it would be better if he could simply move straight to more effective behavior to save gas. Perhaps this will be the end result, but meanwhile, the sub-conscious bias gets the ball rolling. We often get started as skeptics through a belief in magic. Eventually, we learn about slight of hand.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454