wiki of the day: Confirmation Bias

Wikipedia top page Featured Article of the day:

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

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for researchers and other people to favor information that confirms their preconception or hypothesis whether or not it is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall 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 stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts.

quite often seen in the more liberal contributors to RHP Debates.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
quite often seen in the more liberal contributors to RHP Debates.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Probably almost as much as with republican/conservative posters.

? American Thinker's a hateblog? because you don't agree with its opinions?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
quite often seen in the more liberal contributors to RHP Debates.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
a good example of zeeblebot displaying his own "confirmation bias"

I agree completely with the article --- it's extremely difficult for anyone to look at anything and be truly objective about it.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
? American Thinker's a hateblog? because you don't agree with its opinions?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Probably more so. But perhaps that is an example of confirmation bias.

Funny how you open this thread just a day after opening a thread with a copypaste from a hateblog filled with lies about the NHS, by the way.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's not a hateblog. Everything they say must be true, because you agree with it.