Take it away!

Over at this website: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org - I would call this progressive mormon website.

There was discussion podcast episode on Confirmation Bias (currently still only accessible to premium members).

But the idea behind this is a belief persistence to hold true what you currently assume, and an unwillingness to consider the fact that one may be wrong.

Essentially this would turn everyone agnostic, and start to question what we assume to be true. However, without some healthy dose of skepticism we may all end up being diluted believing in things that aren't correct.


Confirmation Bias isn't limited to religion, but extends to just about every assumption we may have whether it be in sports, workplace, or just every day interpersonal life exchanges.

So all this becomes epistemology in nature.

Before I go any further, does anyone care to share methods on how to best avoid this?

I think the fact that a person even knows that confirmation bias exists is a good step.

After that I believe one of the best things to do is to try and intentionally engage with viewpoints that are different than your own. It's so easy for me to want to read only those views that affirm my biases, but I have to catch myself when I find that I have done that for far too long.  Often I am surprised by the things I have started to accept into my own worldview as being true, when opposing views have some truth to them as well that I have been ignoring.

All of that being said, as a human being that is driven by forces that are incredibly strong, I sure suck at this.

There is a game that you can play to see confirmation bias in effect.   But you are absolutely right, the fact that you are aware that it exists is a huge step.

So the game consists of guessing the rule of a three set of numbers. To find out the rule you can ask if the numbers follow a specific rule or throw out a new set of three numbers and I will indicate if the sequence of numbers follow the rule or not.

For instance what rule am I using in the following set of numbers:

2, 4, & 6

Evens.

Some level of confirmation bias is really essential to survival, isn't it? Just like some level of assumptions are necessary to operate.

Confirmation bias is indeed one of those things we all do, unfortunately.  I don't have a great solution for how to avoid it other than to the already-mentioned be aware of it, and trying to force yourself to treat evidence that doesn't agree with your views the same way you treat evidence that does.  If anyone has more effective techniques, I'd very much like to hear them!


(I've seen the guess-the-sequence example before (and fell into the trap!), so will leave the guessing to others this time.  The time I saw it, it was on a website where you could "test" your guess by entering a string of numbers that should fit the pattern, and it'd tell you whether it fit or not.  Then you could guess the rule, and see if you were right.  It was very effective at illustrating the point.)

I have seen it as well and it was a great way to illustrate the point.

Has anyone tried using http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/

Basically it helps monitor where on the political spectrum you are doing your reading from. I am sure it's not perfect (where they slot certain sources, and a small sample size of current sources) but it seems like an intriguing idea.

I don't own an iphone or use Chrome so I have never used it. If there was an Android app I would give it a try.

I'll give it a try... just downloaded it. The extension just tracks if your sources or left or right leaning and gives you a percentage on how balanced you are in your approach to the information that you read.

I find that Jesus Parable's tend to feed off people's bias, hearing only what they want to hear, or seeing only what they want to see. Like in the parable of the sower, but in that same parable the option of choosing what type of seed do you want to be?

Another thing that helps avoid confirmation bias is playing the devil's advocate or simply debating from the other's point of view. This will help have a fuller picture... of the other.

Perhaps if we ran down some of the debates in each thread and took turns to see the other's person's perspective we could appreciate more from where they are coming from.

But how practical is it for a Theist to take the Atheist side, and can the the Atheist side be capable of taking or holding a Theist's perspective?

There have been cases here where I've taken an opposing side, just because no one else was arguing it (and it's boring when everyone agrees :P ) It has been fun and very educational, and there's no reason why anyone needs to be 'honest' in representing their views here.

Typically I would consider roleplayers to be out of the box thinkers, but all of us are susceptible to tend to reject information that doesn't conform to the paradigm that we are currently using to understand the world.

Problems tend to occur when we are too dismissive of other people's point of view, and write other people off because we have already made up our mind that we are in the right and others are already incorrect.

I suppose this is typical of stages 3 & 4 of Fowler's stages of faith. So perhaps I should ask everyone if everyone is familiar with that topic. Or should we start it's own thread on that subject.

Anyone familiar with Fowler's Stages of Faith?
http://www.psychologycharts.co...stages-of-faith.html

Never seen that before but I find it odd that the stages are numbered in some sort of order like that. People move throughout those stages in their life, with many staying at certain places throughout their life.

Also, the assumption that Stage 6 is some sort of apex of living is pretty insulting to everyone else on the planet.

While I agree that seems to be implied with the stages of faith theory by James Fowler, it's important to note that it is just that a theory. Never does he say one stage is better than the other.

There are other models of mental or ego development, compare that with:
http://integralleadershiprevie...uoise-organizations/




A more complete version would be:
http://integral-life-home.s3.a...eveSelf-Altitude.jpg

But these are harder to understand without perhaps a podcast explanation.
http://www.mormondiscussionpod...e-diplomat-magician/

These help to understand shifts in faith transition, and even Fowler's supposedly arrogant model helps to have a much more charitable perspective to those who think differently, noting that being in different stages isn't necessarily better, but just different.

I think that this is more dependent on the individual and the comfort level the person has with the underlying concepts.

Some related issues that will clog the "bias" part of this are:

1) the person knows he is not the spokesperson for the religion and hesitates to publicly question something he is not equipped to tackle.

2) in a similar vein, the person may not have many hours every day to study the details of the religion and relies on others with more knowledge.

3) the individual may feel something is right without knowing exactly why, the same way you might know not to put your hand into a flame without actually doing it.

I think this last point is critical because the reality is that religion is so complicated, so complex with nuance, and so mired in history, that it is unfair to start questioning individuals about small nuances that could themselves be colored with bias or only minimal information.  This is why individuals tend to trust those whom they trust and their feelings/Holy Ghost.

Faith is also different than science in that it is putting trust in a higher power without knowledge.

Long story short: I think so-called "confirmation bias," when applied to religion, has factors to it that it might not have with other areas, and may even be a misnomer.

#3 is a really bad example, as you can't even put your finger nearby a flame without feeling the heat, obviously increasing as you get closer, and we've all burnt ourselves on a fire at some point in our lives. You know not to put your hand in a flame from current and previous experience; it's not a mystical sixth sense.

However, ignoring that specific example, #3 is (usually) the exact confirmation bias we're talking about. You suspect something is true, but cannot name specific evidence, nor do you choose to test it. We used to have this all the time; I'd bring out a weird, pink, spiky fruit and tell my kids to eat it and they'd feel in their guts it tastes disgusting because they're kids and they don't know anything. Then they convince themselves it's awful and we cajole back and forth, and they feel like they got away from something awful.

#1 and 2 are reasonable, but if the person you depend on failed to do their work, or have a specific motivation for you to believe what they tell you (rather than for you to perhaps believe what is true), that failure rolls down.

Trusting someone because you already believe them to be right is a big part of confirmation bias.  Not wanting to question someone because you view them as an authority is also part of it.  These aren't unique to religion at all, I would say.

The whole problem with confirmation bias is that it hinders your ability to correct your views when they're wrong.  So if you believe something incorrect for whatever reason, and when presented with some evidence that it's incorrect you think "well, my spokesperson told me it, so I'm sure it must be true" or "I don't have time to study this, I'll just trust this person who has" or "well, my gut tells me I'm right," then you're less likely to correct your incorrect belief than if you don't think those things.

The important thing to ask ourselves is "if I'm wrong about this thing I believe, how will I find out, and correct my belief?"  If our answer to that is "well, it's really not an issue, because I'm sure I'm not wrong" I'd say we're probably suffering from confirmation bias. If we think "It's not an issue because I heard it from-so-and-so, and they'd never be wrong" it's even more likely.

And what if it is unprovable, either true or false.
On has to assume the Infinite and the Infintismil, to discuss them.

Though the idea of the "not finite" would sound reasonable.

Part of the problem with confirmation bias is probably the defining of the product.

Going back to my planting a seed analogy.  If a person plants a seed of faith and sees a rose grow, and someone else says, "No, that is not a rose, it is a dandelion," and yet another person says, "No, it is a lily," then they have all missed the point because it is still a flower.

If you have developed through personal study, prayer, and reflection the ideas of spirituality, then just because people call it something else, or say it is something else, does not mean there is no flower.  It simply means the flower might be called something else.

So too with faith and so called "confirmation bias."  They have something beautiful there. Maybe they have called it by the wrong name (or religion) because that is what they have been taught to call it, but that does not take away from its beauty.  Perhaps they still want to call it a "rose" when it is actually a "tulip."  But that would really miss the point that a beautiful flower has sprung from a seed, and that is the thing that is undeniable.  The bias is of minimal import at the end of the day.

I think the differences between Christianity and Taoism are more than 'minimal import'. Those are radically different things. Lumping all 'beliefs without evidence' as the same thing feels like legerdemain to win points.

I didn't say the differences between beliefs is of minimal import; I said the bias is of minimal import.

And Taoism, for example, is not typically considered a religion but a philosophical belief.  Faith and philosophy do not mix any more than faith and mathematics mix.  Faith and religion do.

I also didn't say that they should be lumped together.  I just said that if people discover certain truths, they may call it different things.  The truths are the same.  You are trying to lump every truth as one TRUTH.  I am saying truth is found in small amounts and may be looked at differently, but calling it different things does not change it.

If you are comparing two different truths, you are not responding to my argument but instead making it a different argument entirely.

EXAMPLE: Let's say the truth is that the sun will rise tomorrow.  The Taoist and the Catholic may call the belief in that two different things, but it is the same truth.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:52, Mon 22 Jan 2018.