Confirmation Bias is the unconscious tendency that all of us have to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms our preconceptions. The operations of Confirmation Bias have effects from the most intimate, as a derivative of transference, to the most public, in our political and policy prescriptions. Recognizing and compensating for CB should be a vital part of any contentious discussion.
The solution that is offered by the Scientific Method is to require that science only address hypotheses that are falsifiable and to require independent replication and corroboration before accepting a scientific statement as valid. Even then, scientists are careful to report their findings as significant to a clearly defined level of confidence, recognizing that contrary results can occur based on chance alone.
That so many people do not understand these basic logic and scientific concepts leads to all sorts of problems, from law suits alleging that Vioxx causes heart attacks to confident assertions that Global Warming is an impending crisis.
The key point I want to make is that Confirmation Bias is pervasive and operates on a predominantly unconscious level. However, it is possible to understand (some of) your own CB and take steps to at least partially protect oneself from falling so far into the trap that your perception of reality is impaired.
It is always easier for an outside observer, especially one who is able to take a neutral position, to recognize a person's unconscious biases. This is a basic premise of insight oriented psychotherapy, of which Psychoanalysis is the prototype. Psychoanalysts, by undergoing their own, personal analysis, have a better than usual sense of their own unconscious tendencies (ie, transference reactions) within intense interpersonal relationships; however this requires that they have an operational emotional distance from their patients so that they can be more neutral and objective about their patient's difficulties. Psychoanalysts are not similarly privileged in their relationship to data in other spheres.
Since I am a supporter of an aggressive approach to the war on terror, including the Iraq invasion, it is relatively easy for me to point out CB in those who oppose the war, which includes a fair sized cohort whose dislike of George W. Bush has led them to truly indefensible positions. However, my aim here is to suggest ways to combat our own CB so I think it would be more useful to address a piece of my own CB.
I would add that even though I read MSM articles, listen to NPR on a regular basis and peruse liberal and left leaning blogs on a regular basis, this is not protective of CB since any of us can read an article that has a point of view we disagree with and find multiple reasons to discount it.
As a supporter of the war, I was convinced prior to the invasion that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Further, while I was not convinced that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links to al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, I did think there was a great deal of evidence that he was a supporter of Islamic terror and that some connections between Hussein and al Qaeda were likely to exist. Obviously, many who opposed and oppose the war would dispute this.
Since a war is one of the most significant actions a country can take and people's lives are at stake, it would only be natural to look for confirmatory data for the two hypotheses. As a result I tend to seek out information which would tend to support my preconception and tend to give it more credence than it might deserve. The problem is that if one argues that there were WMD, it is impossible to prove that there were no WMD; you cannot prove a negative, and therefore, I cannot and do not make the assertion that Saddam Hussein had WMD in the absence of data. However, the corollary charge, that Bush lied, which continues to be bruited about by the likes of John Kerry, is objectively falsifiable. If even one memo could be found that suggests that Bush knew there were no WMD, but invaded anyway, that would disprove the hypothesis that he did not lie. As there is no such incriminating memo, those who make the assertion are in error. They may hope that such a memo will be found just as I would not be displeased to find WMD hidden in Iraq (or Syria or the Bekaa Valley) but until such time as the memo or WMD are found, it is the height of irresponsibility to insist that the hypothesis has been proved.
Similarly, in the case of the connections between Hussein and al Qaeda, which have been consistently denied by so many, there is a growing body of evidence of their connections but those who refuse to read or credit the evidence have shown they cannot move beyond their preconceptions. Based on the documents currently being translated (many of which have been discussed at Captain's Quarters) there was a web of connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq; however, I am not yet ready to assert conclusively that they had operational ties as opposed to varying and temporary alliances of convenience. The idea that there were no ties between them because of ideological differences, however, has been tested and clearly shown to be inaccurate.
The point of all this is to suggest a way to deal with our own CB: if a position we hold is not falsifiable, it behooves us to remain silent until and unless evidence appears or accumulates that provides us with confirmation of our position.
This is not fool proof and it is in this area that commenters can be of crucial importance. Telling me I am biased is unhelpful; I already know I have biases and have never claimed otherwise. On the other hand, if you can point out an assertion I make that is not falsifiable or already disproved, alerting me is a favor which can only improve the quality of my blog and the quality of my thinking.
Recent Comments