What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Confirmation Bias - How do we overcome it as a people? (1 Viewer)

dkp993

dkp993

Footballguy
con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

noun

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
 

This forum is the classic example of and a perfect case study in confirmation bias.  This phenomenon very real is not limited to a specific political belief.  It’s rampant on both sides and erodes any real possibility of true discussion.   

How do we combat this and actually move the needle forward on some of the very important discussions that are on the table here?

**Please PLEASE PLEASE don’t not turn this thread into an anti-Trump or anti GOP/DEM thread.  This forum is full of that already and there are plenty of places to express those thoughts.  

 
That's a great question.

I think for me, it helps to do a near constant "check yourself" thing of asking, am I being biased here?

I'll often flip something around and ask myself if I'd feel the same way if it were an opposite person. The "I'm fine when my guy does this but I'm upset when your guy does the same thing".

I guess maybe it mostly boils down to something I'm realizing is one of the most underrated things in life - Self Awareness.

And the secondary point related to that is "It's not all about me". 

Sorry for the ramble answer. But those things help me. 

 
One important thing to accept, in my opinion,  is we all have it.  The question isn’t if but how much.  I agree with Joe about checking yourself.  That will help limit the bias.

 
All great responses and I completely agree.  But do we approach this with in the context of a conversation/debate? Typically this just ends up with one person proclaiming the other person wrong but this never opens up the discussion, it only closes it.  

I know it’s a large ask but I guess I’m looking for a mechanism within a conversation to increase the dialogue not shut it down, we have a lot of people doing nothing but talking at each other (even if it’s in a more respectful manner then it was before).  

 
There's no easy answer. People who are told about confirmation bias and try to be conscious of it are, in general, every bit as likely to succumb to confirmation bias as people who've never heard of it.

One good piece of advice, though... Don't try to notice confirmation bias in other people and point it out to them. Try to recognize it in yourself instead. It might be futile (see previous paragraph), but at least it's less annoying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
All great responses and I completely agree.  But do we approach this with in the context of a conversation/debate? Typically this just ends up with one person proclaiming the other person wrong but this never opens up the discussion, it only closes it.  

I know it’s a large ask but I guess I’m looking for a mechanism within a conversation to increase the dialogue not shut it down, we have a lot of people doing nothing but talking at each other (even if it’s in a more respectful manner then it was before).  
Click to expand...
Are you talking more in the context of here on the forum or in real life?

They're both similar.

I think a huge thing I see people miss is this: Nobody likes to be told they're wrong. 

And when most people are told they're wrong, they immediately become defensive.

The reality is most humans are terrible at persuading or convincing others. Because their default is "I'm right. If you don't don't agree with me, you're wrong".

That's how most message boards work. 

And when someone is told they're wrong, it's almost instantly over.

I think it's a zillion times better if people do less telling the others they're wrong and more telling others what they think and why they think it. 

That would be a start and its' something I see tons of people miss. 

 
dkp993 said:
All great responses and I completely agree.  But do we approach this with in the context of a conversation/debate? Typically this just ends up with one person proclaiming the other person wrong but this never opens up the discussion, it only closes it.  

I know it’s a large ask but I guess I’m looking for a mechanism within a conversation to increase the dialogue not shut it down, we have a lot of people doing nothing but talking at each other (even if it’s in a more respectful manner then it was before).  
Click to expand...
My most thought provoking conversations are with people I don't agree with. They possess the same traits that I think I have though. Self awareness, a well thought out 'why' behind any opinion they have, facts, logic, macro level thinking, and an understanding that of all the information available throughout the universe each individual knows very little about any of it. Those are the sort of conversations that make me smarter, evolve. 

If the party you are conversing with doesn't have those or similar traits then the outcome is already known before it starts. There's no upside in that specific one-on-one.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think a huge thing I see people miss is this: Nobody likes to be told they're wrong. 
Click to expand...
Making mistakes is how I learn. Telling me I am wrong provides no benefit. Explaining to me why I'm wrong may. Like any human i may resist at first (certainly not always), but if you're right/I'm wrong then you explain why and I become better. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Are you talking more in the context of here on the forum or in real life?

They're both similar.

I think a huge thing I see people miss is this: Nobody likes to be told they're wrong. 

And when most people are told they're wrong, they immediately become defensive.

The reality is most humans are terrible at persuading or convincing others. Because their default is "I'm right. If you don't don't agree with me, you're wrong".

That's how most message boards work. 

And when someone is told they're wrong, it's almost instantly over.

I think it's a zillion times better if people do less telling the others they're wrong and more telling others what they think and why they think it. 

That would be a start and its' something I see tons of people miss. 
Click to expand...
Primarily within the context of here, but to a smaller extent in the real world too.   But in the real world, tone, tenor, body language and the ability to better navigate a conversation in real time I find the conversations to be far more productive.  

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post.   

 
dkp993 said:
Primarily within the context of here, but to a smaller extent in the real world too.   But in the real world, tone, tenor, body language and the ability to better navigate a conversation in real time I find the conversations to be far more productive.  

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post.   
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about a whole thing on "disagreeing well". It's something we very much could do better with.

Another big component of it in my opinion is this: Humility.

Meaning understanding that it JUST might be possible I'm not the sole source of wisdom on this topic.

Most people do this because they're insecure. They've learned if they put up a big front and puff their chest like they're the expert, they can push over opposition. 

The reality is most everyone sees right through it.

Instead, if we speak more terms of "this is how I see it" or "this has been my experience" things take a dramatically different, and usually better, turn. 

 
MAC_32 said:
My most thought provoking conversations are with people I don't agree with. They possess the same traits that I think I have though. Self awareness, a well thought out 'why' behind any opinion they have, facts, logic, macro level thinking, and an understanding that of all the information available throughout the universe each individual knows very little about any of it. Those are the sort of conversations that make me smarter, evolve. 

If the party you are conversing with doesn't have those or similar traits then the outcome is already known before it starts. There's no upside in that specific one-on-one.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more.  I’m here in the PSF solely to hear those that don’t agree with me.  But we (the collection we) can’t seems to get much productive dialogue going on. The tone is better recently but man every single post here seems to be dripping with confirmation bias.   Very few people seems to be trying to understand the other side.  And it’s a shame really, there are a ton of smart people here interacting but very little true dialogue.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think the internet disconnects people from personal responsibility so they just stop thinking its la la land where the force or irreverence of a statement matters more than its content and truth and then sadly as much time as most of spend hooked up these days it bleeds over in to the real world and how we interact with one another on a one to one basis its pretty sad basically take that to the bank bromigos 

 
I try to look at where the info originated and what narrative they are pushing, try to find actual facts and ignore that narrative, and formulate an opinion. If someone doesn’t agree with me, I just type in all caps. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Truly excellent thread:

https://twitter.com/g_s_bhogal/status/1225561131122597896

Impressively succinct descriptions.
Click to expand...
The Dunning-Kruger effect is one of my all-time favorite things.  I had a colleague a while back who was blissfully unaware of her own incompetence, in part because she was not at all introspective, but even if she was, she was too bad at her job to judge her own performance effectively.  The first time I stumbled on this term it was amazing to see that somebody had noticed this phenomenon more broadly and had given it a name.  

 
I would say this qualifies as a pretty solid example of confirmation bias. 

Article he is using to justify his statement is from a "news" source I have never even heard of and is linked back to a facebook post from somebody that doesn't even work at Miller and has a history of posting conspiracy theories. 

If you actually take the time to read the comments in that thread it is disgusting. 

 
dkp993 said:
con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

noun

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
 

This forum is the classic example of and a perfect case study in confirmation bias.  This phenomenon very real is not limited to a specific political belief.  It’s rampant on both sides and erodes any real possibility of true discussion.   

How do we combat this and actually move the needle forward on some of the very important discussions that are on the table here?

**Please PLEASE PLEASE don’t not turn this thread into an anti-Trump or anti GOP/DEM thread.  This forum is full of that already and there are plenty of places to express those thoughts.  
Click to expand...
In my opinion we don't overcome confirmation bias, but we can combat it by allowing people in our lives with diverse perspectives and though processes and assuming they are also intelligent, compassionate, and reasonable in our discussions with them unless proven otherwise.

 
One of the things I try to do is monitor my own reaction to new information. If my reaction is anger, that's an indicator that I may need to stpe back and re-evaluate my position. New information should almost never make us angry. No one has perfectly complete information. We make decisions and shape our points of view based on the body of information we have at the moment. New information is a good thing that should be sought out and welcomed.

 
We don’t. We can conquer it with effort as individuals but as a “people” it will never be done. 

The good news is that most people have only the vaguest consistency when it comes to political opinions. For a current example, take the recent Nevada Democratic caucus. You would think that Democratic voters would stay in their lanes based on all we have heard- progressive vs moderate. But that is not the case. Most people who chose Biden had Bernie as their 2nd choice. Many who chose Bernie had Buttigieg as their 2nd choice. This should make no sense until you realize that most people don’t think of themselves as “I am a progressive”, “I am a conservative”, etc. instead they think “I like what Trump has to say,” or “I like what Obama has to say”, and there is no political consistency. Therefore I don’t believe that confirmation bias is that big a deal for most people- there isn’t much to confirm. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is one of my all-time favorite things.  I had a colleague a while back who was blissfully unaware of her own incompetence, in part because she was not at all introspective, but even if she was, she was too bad at her job to judge her own performance effectively.  The first time I stumbled on this term it was amazing to see that somebody had noticed this phenomenon more broadly and had given it a name.  
Click to expand...
Dronhoschenschlaf, one of my favorite German words, had this effect on me.

"Feigning sleep to avoid sex" = "thorny lingerie sleep"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
One of the things I try to do is monitor my own reaction to new information. If my reaction is anger, that's an indicator that I may need to stpe back and re-evaluate my position. New information should almost never make us angry. No one has perfectly complete information. We make decisions and shape our points of view based on the body of information we have at the moment. New information is a good thing that should be sought out and welcomed.
Click to expand...
Do you mean if the information content angers you, you re-evaluate or do you mean if the existence of new information (regardless of content...it's mere existence) angers you?

 
The Commish said:
Do you mean if the information content angers you, you re-evaluate or do you mean if the existence of new information (regardless of content...it's mere existence) angers you?
Click to expand...
I meant content, but neither should anger you.  That's not to say, nothing you ever learn should anger you, but getting angry can be an indicator that you should step back and see why you're getting angry. If it's an injustice, then yes. But if it simply contradicts what you thought and that upsets you, then you may want to adjust your view. I may not be explaining this well.

 
Good replies. I agree it's not something that's "overcome" as much as it's "recognized".

Understanding our biases, all of them - and there are a LOT, is a huge part of what I think is the most underrated trait we need: self awareness.

I don't fight bias so much as I try to understand it. And account for it.

I'm incredibly biased for instance in favor or my children. That's ok. But if I'm making some sort of decision involving the relative contribution of my children vs another person I'm not biased in favor of, I'd better be able to understand my bias. And account for it. 

Same with confirmation bias or recency bias or a ton of others.

Just strive sincerely to be self aware. And ask people to help you identify your blind spots.  I find that helps a ton. 

 
timschochet said:
We don’t. We can conquer it with effort as individuals but as a “people” it will never be done. 

The good news is that most people have only the vaguest consistency when it comes to political opinions. For a current example, take the recent Nevada Democratic caucus. You would think that Democratic voters would stay in their lanes based on all we have heard- progressive vs moderate. But that is not the case. Most people who chose Biden had Bernie as their 2nd choice. Many who chose Bernie had Buttigieg as their 2nd choice. This should make no sense until you realize that most people don’t think of themselves as “I am a progressive”, “I am a conservative”, etc. instead they think “I like what Trump has to say,” or “I like what Obama has to say”, and there is no political consistency. Therefore I don’t believe that confirmation bias is that big a deal for most people- there isn’t much to confirm. 
Click to expand...
you don't need to have any well-defined theories or beliefs in order to experience confirmation bias.  I think that's one of the biggest issues right now.  Many people have only the vaguest sense of what they think, but then it starts getting shaped and quickly gets molded and confirmed and re-confirmed though digital communication.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I meant content, but neither should anger you.  That's not to say, nothing you ever learn should anger you, but getting angry can be an indicator that you should step back and see why you're getting angry. If it's an injustice, then yes. But if it simply contradicts what you thought and that upsets you, then you may want to adjust your view. I may not be explaining this well.
Click to expand...
oh...yeah, that makes sense.  I thought you were saying more along the lines of "if you hear someone's beating kids and that new and it angers you, you need to step back and reevaluate"...I follow now :hifive:  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
919
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Joe Bryant
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Future Of The Forum - And Big Thought On The Specific Problem
5 6 7
Replies
311
Views
20K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Maurile Tremblay
Danusha Goska: Why I am no longer a leftist
2 3 4
Replies
159
Views
6K
culdeus
culdeus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top