Sentences with phrase «more confirmation bias»

I'm starting to believe the anti-kid vocalizations in our culture «make sense» considering as this article alludes to, the more you see segregation in your culture the more confirmation bias this affords that kids SHOULD or HAVE to be segregated.

Not exact matches

A more profound example of confirmation bias, which has life - and - death implications, can be found in the world of medical diagnosis.

In all of the above cases the entrepreneur who is susceptible to the confirmation bias will look for information and analyze it in a way that will yield: 1) fewer competitors rather than more, because it increases the viability of the start - up, 2) underestimation of the capabilities of the competition because stronger competitors will make life harder for the entrepreneur, 3) view of the company's product as fully addressing the needs of the customer because otherwise the start - up is at a weaker position in the marketplace, and 4) need for less resources rather than more because it generally makes raising the money easier.

Just some more of the usual confirmation bias I like to wallow in.

With so many media - savy fundies predicting the crash and all their ego - massaging confirmation bias articles and neatly chosen «expert opinions», we may not get more than a handful of 10 % corrections for another decade and every time they happen, we will be told the sky is falling!

Without the ability to subjective evidence to external subjective scrutiny there is no way to know it's anything more than confirmation bias or even delusion.

This entire article is nothing more than confirmation bias in action.

We are more likely to believe a statement if it confirms our preexisting beliefs, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

I recognize the confirmation bias, and I'm sure there are a dozen counter-examples to trot out, but it has felt a little more casual - gamey in the review selection lately.

But more importantly, that sequel to the Rosetta stone of the modern sci - fi / horror / action film (combining not one, not two, but three maligned genres) also earned Sigourney Weaver an Oscar nomination for Best Actress — a confirmation that the Academy could look past a long - held horror bias to celebrate superb genre performances.

To suggest these exultant visions of beauty constitute a reflexive confirmation of existing stereotypes of Los Angeles as a vacuum filled with pretty airheads speaks more to the biases of the accuser than to those of Malick.

Kurt presents the «seven psychological death sins» you should be aware of in an attempt to downtone System 1 and advance System 2: 1) excessive self - confidence, 2) herd mentality, 3) blind orthodoxy, 4) denial, 5) confirmation bias, 6) deadlocked ideas and attitudes, 7) cognitive dissonance (the tendency to go with the thought that «feels best» when stuck with the choice between two contradicting ideas rather than investigating which is more rational).

(as is confirmation bias) What I AM saying is that we must try better to understand when bias is used (whether it be in reading a review or reacting to one) and react more appropriately.

To me, that really isn't confirmation bias though, it's a desire to see a more standardized way of judging a game so that the scores being presented actually mean something to the reader.

However, if you use the tips to avoid confirmation bias, you might find a more truthful way to gauge your favorite games or unheralded new IP and the reviews that are written about them.

Confirmation bias is our tendency to ignore or downplay information that dis - confirms our preconceived decisions or opinions and to pay more attention to and emphasize information that confirms them.

At the heart of all these issues is the very problematic notion of «confirmation bias,» far more prevalent in all forms of scientific research than one might think.

These days I read his stuff with interest but I do think he could make his case more strongly by avoiding his own tendency to confirmation bias and being rather selective with his sources, to say the least.

And I would offer a similar criticism of that as well, as IMO, you neither ground that form of analogizing in a scientific manner; as I have told you, I think that your inclusion and exclusion criteria selection process is quite arbitrary, and I don't think that it is coincidence that it confirms your distinction of a group you belong to («skeptics») from a group you criticize («realists») in ways that (1) reaffirm a superiority in the group you belong to and, (2) I consider to be superficial and not meaningful as compared to the vastly more important underlying similarities (e.g., the tendency toward identity protective behavior, motivated reasoning, cultural cognition, confirmation bias, emotively - influenced reasoning, etc.)...

Confirmation biases would lead reviewers to work extra hard to find flaws with papers whose conclusions they dislike, and to be more permissive about methodological issues when they endorse the conclusions.

A community of like minded folks, tend to be more prone to group think — or confirmation bias.

Instead they double down and go on with their confirmation bias, completely unfazed by these little tipoffs that a lot more work is necessary before they have aced the exam.

This book is nothing more than a slop for conspiracy theorists inside their glass shell of confirmation bias.

Of course, confirmation bias makes it more likely to succumb to.

Add on to that the phenomena of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, and a «marketing» goal would be even that much more unrealizable.

It's odd that in other scientific fields financial incentive and confirmation bias are considered big issues — which is why drug company funded studies are viewed more sceptically and why double - blind testing is considered a necessary standard.

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).

I excerpt the «confirmation bias» study referenced above: «In fact, given that the logic of science should be more properly falsificational rather than confirmational, negative (or contratheoretical) results yield much more information than positive results (Weimer, 1977).

It says they have more «trust» in the contaminated data than the uncontaminated data and that reeks of confirmation bias because the contamination moves the trend in the same direction as their hypothesis.

Anybody who cares about truth, reality science and scientific integrity more than stroking their own 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.

Deep Climate February 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm Yes, Ravetz spoke of possible confirmation bias, incompetence and worse, more or less, at WUWT.

The shriller, nastier and more ad - hominem his attackers become, the more apparent it is that they are trying to drown out what must be most obvious in their own minds — that they have bought into a cult of belief far removed from science and reality, so full of confirmation bias and contradiction that the only way to maintain its momentum is to constantly stoke it with fear and hyperbole.

It becomes more important for practitioners to impress other scientists and policymakers than it does to seek the truth, and we reach a point of rampant confirmation bias and censorship of opposing views and data.

But there was one exception — judges and lawyers with more experience tended to be even more susceptible to confirmation bias than were lawyers with less experience.

A more accurate model is: politics is a system that 1) selects against skills needed for rigorous thinking and for qualities such as groupthink and confirmation bias, 2) incentivises a badly selected set of people to consider their career not the public interest, 3) drops them into dysfunctional institutions with no relevant training and poor tools, 4) centralises vast amounts of power in the hands of these people and institutions in ways we know are bound to cause huge errors, and 5) provides very weak (and often damaging) feedback so facing reality is rare, learning is practically impossible, and system reform is seen as a hostile act by political parties and civil services worldwide.

By the way, I look at comparable sales, but I do not rely on them, because so often comparable sales are nothing more than a vicious cycle of confirmation bias totally unconnected to fundamental value.