Term of the Day: Confirmation Bias / Normalcy Bias

Confirmation Bias Definition | Investopedia

A psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore information that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias occurs when people filter out potentially useful facts and opinions that don’t coincide with their preconceived notions. It affects perceptions and decision making in all aspects of our lives and can cause us to make less-than-optimal choices. Seeking out people and publications with different opinions than our own can help us overcome confirmation bias and make better-informed decisions. http://www.web2pointsomething.org/2011/12/19/feature-article-confirmation-bias-in-the-internet-age/ FEATURE ARTICLE: CONFIRMATION BIAS IN THE INTERNET AGE Posted by: Angeladu | | December 19, 2011 Confirmation Bias refers to “a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and look for what confirms ones beliefs, and to ignore, not look for,  or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts ones’ beliefs. Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data”. In fact… “A study done at Ohio State in 2009 showed that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view than those that challenged their beliefs and many didn’t read any opposing view articles at all”.    In Stephen Mills’s article “The Modern Decline in Independent Thinking“, he discusses how the internet influences individuals’ thinking. In particular, Stephen mentions that groupthink causes the problem of confirmation bias, which eliminates the effectiveness of independent thinking. The internet provides a virtual world that allows individuals to share their opinions regardless of the color, race or creed. That is to say, the internet is supposed to stand for freedom of speech. Nevertheless, if people participate in a networked community, their ability of thinking will be diminished.    Accroding to Stephen, he discovers “groupthink inhibits alternatives, minimizes conflict, and enforces conformity. The need to maintain consistency will push you to continue with the same position once it is articulated”. Is it true that groupthink has such power? Let me give you an example… The reason why the internet appeals to us is because we find ideas that resonate with our own thoughts. Suppose you think social media such as Facebook.com fosters transnational communication. And you find a discussion board online which has an identical point of view. Of course, you will be happy to join the group and continue the discussion. As the group becomes larger, the credibility of the initial topic increases. Imagine a random person who is not sure whether social media can develop worldwide communication or not. But he or she happens to open your webpage. A good chance is that the person makes up his or mind to become one of your followers.  Stephen explains this phenomenon in his article, “information availability means we inevitably will suffer from confirmation bias.  We are not becoming more objective and open minded, we are becoming more committed to our existing beliefs”.    I am not sure this whole idea-following thing is working. In the end, Stephen gives us some suggestions about how to become an independent thinker. Let us hear from him… 1. “You have to get out of all the polarizing debates and groups and away from your fellow devotees and do something that doesn’t feel natural”. 2. “You have to do some hard thinking primarily by yourself; without your standard arguments ready and waiting”. 3. “As long as you understand both the power and danger of groups and act accordingly, you can enjoy the benefits and mitigate the dangers of this new connected world.  The only thing have to gain is your own independent mind”. Here is what I recommend…

			Confirmation Bias Definition | Investopedia A psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore informati...
			View on lists5.investopedia.com	Preview by Yahoo

The Internet is the greatest detractor to serious thinking since the invention of television”.

- Leo Chalupa, Neurobiologist, University of California, Davis

Is the Internet Changing the Way You think? The Net’s Impact on Our Minds andFuture. Edited by John Brokman. (New York: Harper Perennial, 2011).

   Internet has already become an inevitable part of our life. I think the best advantage that we take from the internet is efficiency. The internet saves us a lot of time in finding things. Say a student wants to write an essay about earthquake. She opens Google.com and types in the word earthquake. Less than one second, the internet offers her 167,000,000 results that relate to the earthquake topic. Then, what happens next? Click, click, click… She gets what she wants by simply controlling her mouse instead of spending hours in a library. I believe most of us have the same experience in our life. It is just so convenient that we search whatever we want to know on the internet. However, my question is do you take whatever appears on the internet for granted? or, do you judge the credibility of any arguments made on the internet?

   

--

And another one of the big problems that we are facing is something called "normalcy bias".  The following is how Wikipedia defines it...

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

Armstrong lied and Rick Reilly cried. Cry me a river, Rickey!!

This part of the interview was most telling.

This just illustrates how Lance Armstrong is, was and always will be the consummate politician -- which is to say sociopath. Good word!!

And it is very important to understand the analogy to what continues to go on today in the political arena.

I've been criticized somewhat in the past for making the linkage, the analogy from sports to real-life, especially politics.

To those critics, I will say you are as wrong as those who stood steadfast in their defense of Lance Armstrong. You need to adjust your mind-set, just a wee-bit.

I have always said that anyone who thought that Armstrong could not only beat cancer, but beat a Tour de France field that was rife with cheating, would require a level of cognitive dissonance that was simply off the charts. I do agree with Armstrong on the "culture of the game" issue and that he took the path of least resistance, ie: if you can't beat them, join them. That cognitive dissonance was snapped in two yesterday.

from the Tampa Bay Times:

Oprah Winfrey gets Lance Armstrong to admit blood doping and some lies, but not much else | TV shows, TV news, media issues: The Feed | Tampa Bay Times:

"Fame just magnifies who we really are,” Winfrey noted at one point, saying such power and wealth can either make someone a bigger jerk or humanitarian, depending on their outlook, The implication to Armstrong: Weren’t you just acting like the jerk you always were?

“I don’t know if you pulled those two words out of thin air; jerk and humanitarian – I’d say I was both,” Armstrong added, looking at a clip of himself lying during a court deposition. “I look at that and say ‘look at that arrogant prick.' I say that today. That’s not good.”

But many commenting on the interview used a different word to describe Armstrong after seeing the interview: sociopath.

Unable to really empathize with those whose lives he upended or admit how his lawsuits, bullying and control of the sport impacted so many, Armstrong came off mostly as a guy only willing to admit what the public already knew, in some head-scratching bid to try salvaging his reputation.

Given how badly this interview went, Armstrong may find that task tough as winning another Tour de France.

'via Blog this'


The Rick Reilly's of the world have spent a lot of time defending this and selectively vilifying and bullying those they don't like while simultaneously protecting those they do like. Today they are paying the price.

They should pay a professional price as well. They left their journalistic integrity, professionalism and any shred of objectivity at the door in order to wave pom-poms for this guy shamelessly for years and years.

Illustration below in Reilly's own article.

Cry me a river, Rickey.  You were a willing and able co-conspirator in Lance's crimes and now you want to disown him? Same thing with the corrupt MSM in other genres.

Go down with the ship, Captain.

You and your ilk are as big a bunch of lying, whiny, little scum-bag, bitches as you portray Lance to be today. Take a look in the mirror, Sherlock Holmes.

from espn.com
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying

Keep Your Apology

Lance Armstrong lied for years. Now he apologizes? Forget it

Among my emails Wednesday morning, out of the blue, was one from Lance Armstrong.

Riles, I'm sorry.

All I can say for now but also the most heartfelt thing too. Two very important words.

L

And my first thought was ... "Two words? That's it?"

Two words? For 14 years of defending a man? And in the end, being made to look like a chump?

Wrote it, said it, tweeted it: "He's clean." Put it in columns, said it on radio, said it on TV. Staked my reputation on it.

"Never failed a drug test," I'd always point out. "Most tested athlete in the world. Tested maybe 500 times. Never flunked one."

Why? Because Armstrong always told me he was clean.

On the record. Off the record. Every kind of record. In Colorado. In Texas. In France. On team buses. In cars. On cell phones.

I'd sit there with him, in some Tour de France hotel room while he was getting his daily postrace massage. And we'd talk through the hole in the table about how he stared down this guy or that guy, how he'd fooled Jan Ullrich on the torturous Alpe d'Huez into thinking he was gassed and then suddenly sprinted away to win. How he ordered chase packs from the center of the peloton and reeled in all the pretenders.

And then I'd bring up whatever latest charge was levied against him. "There's this former teammate who says he heard you tell doctors you doped." "There's this former assistant back in Austin who says you cheated." "There's this assistant they say they caught disposing of your drug paraphernalia."

And every time -- every single time -- he'd push himself up on his elbows and his face would be red and he'd stare at me like I'd just shot his dog and give me some very well-delivered explanation involving a few dozen F words, a painting of the accuser as a wronged employee seeking revenge, and how lawsuits were forthcoming.

And when my own reporting would produce no proof, I'd be convinced. I'd go out there and continue polishing a legend that turned out to be plated in fool's gold.

As least Lance didn't make this list (yet):