Latest Issue of the MindBrainEd Think Tank + (ISSN 2434-1002) 4 MindBrained Bulletin Think Tank Conf Bias Apr 20 | Page 9

only judge my friends’ theories as improbable, not absolutely wrong.
Being “scientific” also means that when these friends dictate a (conspiracy) theory to
me – they tend to be dogmatic when they do – and then cite a paper or person as
proof, I always look that reference up online. That way I can verify the claim and see
if there is an opposing position. There usually is. The study they referenced was
poorly done, couldn’t be replicated, was countered by other studies, or there are
credibility issues with the source, as in Dr. Mercola, Andrew Wakefield or Breitbart
News.
In almost every case, I find trouble with the
information I was given. It becomes obvious
that my informant has cherry picked a few
facts out of a much more complex whole and
used those as proof. Confirmation bias. I often
feel that if only my discussion partners would
take the time to read the same things I had,
that they would see things more accurately.
You have probably felt that way too, haven’t
you?
John Oliver shows us how science is misused.
Now, I wonder. Do you see where I am going with this? Am I not also being inflexible
and dismissive of other information? I might consider my going online to confirm
what my conversant says as a part of my openness, my scientific rigor, my objectivity,
but that is an illusion. I am subject to confirmation bias as well. True, there is a huge
amount of evidence that shows Wakefield – the vaccines decrier – is not credible, but
do I know for a fact that the criticism is valid, instead of just being a smear campaign
by Big Pharma as claimed by my friend? Can I dismiss my friend’s claim just because
it is inconvenient? I am subject to confirmation bias too, as we all are, and that is the
hard part.
Confirmation bias rests on one condition, deciding to do one thing or another.
Deciding. Keep that word in mind. Even deciding to check something online involves
confirmation bias. I might pull up 10 links on Wakefield but the one I decide to open
is the one with “fraud” in the title. After all, I’m looking for criticism of my partner’s
arguments (even if I lie to myself that I’m just being objective), while avoiding
criticism of my own.
The decisions I make in the process are biased, and for a good reason. It is
de