Sentences with phrase «called confirmation bias»

Also one's experience is anecdotal, and you should really check into what's called confirmation bias.

That's called confirmation bias, essentially letting your experiences affect your perception of the statistics.

This is called confirmation bias, the tendency to see what confirms an observer's prior expectations.

This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence.

It is called confirmation bias.

It's called confirmation bias.

Believers seek proof of that which they have already decided exists — it's called confirmation bias.

Psychologists call this the confirmation bias.

Critics say people are shaped by what they read (psychologists calls this confirmation bias).

The common culprits in all this are two quirks of the human mind that psychologists call confirmation bias and hindsight bias.

Also, there is a neat little thing that behavioral finance calls confirmation bias.

Postscript, 5:00 p.m. Call it confirmation bias, but I had to direct attention to this Twitter reaction from David Roberts:

and that many of the views expressed were not dissimilar to those you are quite likely to find in posts on this blog (OK, call it confirmation bias if you must!)

«Whether you call it confirmation bias or motivated cognition, it is a pretty robust finding across many different studies.»

Not exact matches

In a sense, what Silver is pointing out is similar to what we see in the rise of so - called «fake news» that circulates through Facebook and other social platforms — namely, a massive case of confirmation bias.

This is called «confirmation bias».

Saying I have confirmation bias (which I don't), calling me a closeted fundie, saying I'm closed minded and then making fun of a theory that Sam Harris postulates...

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.

I guess you could call the comment in my post a form of confirmation bias.

There are those that do have confirmation bias, and I have seen that kind of thing in these reviews, but it seems to me that that one particular part you call out in your blog is not part of it, but rather holding reviewers accountable for their scores.

[Response: Do you think that scientists are not well aware of the possibility of confirmation bias or have no sense of «human nature» as you call it?

Call this one confirmation bias instead of circularity, if you prefer, but then confirmation bias is itself a form of circularity.

Just not on the idiotic scale we have been funding the institutionalized confirmation bias process that calls itself «climate science.»

Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, the biasing influence of advocacy, noble cause corruption, self - interest, conflict of interest, in - group biases, the destructiveness of name - calling (the label of «denier» in particular)....

It's called «confirmation bias» and it's what aspects of Scientific practice such as repeatability and peer review are supposed to deter.

And since the «climate science» field is such a festering sewer of corruption, groupthink, circular reasoning and confirmation bias, I have exactly ZERO confidence that the «adjustments» are anything more than the «adjusters» seeking to make the so - called «data» match their pre-conceived conclusions (whether consciously or unconsciously).

By choosing to rely on one estimate of forcings - even if it is within the range of values in the literature - to the exclusion of others that do not conform to your conclusion is called cherry picking and confirmation bias.

One thing that bothers me is that the scientists mentioned (including yourself) may be suffering from the opposite of confirmation bias — shall I call it «defending the cause»?

A person could argue that this primary focus on human influences predisposes the IPCC to finding these very influences, because IPCC panel members recognize only evidence that supports their already - decided conclusion (what researchers call «confirmation bias»).

You can wave the red herring of «those that call it like it is are just big meanies» trying to bully those that are more interested in buying into bad methodology to support their own bias confirmation... but that just confirms for me that your argument is in itself a distraction from relevant facts in evidence.

So the entire name of the blog, 97 % consensus is... what can you say but an embarrassment and the sea warmth business an amazing, high - arcing hop into the confirmation bias hot tub, but I call 50 - 50 on the escalator point.

In place of it, nothing but reams of some of thye best data I have yet encountered on the psychological trait of sometimes called «confirmation bias» or epistemic «seizing and freezing»....