How Did Confirmation Bias Evolve?

[Jeff Corey]

It's not a huge deal, I would concede the point, but I wonder if every instance of confirmation bias is logically the same as the human tendancy to flip the AC card but not the MT card (i.e., look to confirm whether than falsify)

At TAM1, when presented with the Wason Reduced Array task (a choice between 1 or 2), a statistically significant majority picked 2. If you're interested, I'll locate the exact numbers when I go to my office Monday.

 

[Taffer]

It's not a huge deal, I would concede the point, but I wonder if every instance of confirmation bias is logically the same as the human tendancy to flip the AC card but not the MT card (i.e., look to confirm whether than falsify)

No, you're right, it isn't a big deal.

I'm a little confused by your example, though. Where does flipping come into it?

 

[blutoski]

What? Unless I'm missing your meaning, confirmation bias is when you only take those cases which agree with your belief, and ignore those which do not. Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy relating to the rules of logic.

Nope. It's the way you try to confirm your hypothesis by seeking a confirmation, instead of seeking disconfirmation.

Hypothesis: crows are black

Strategy: look for black crows

Fact: I found a 100 black crows

Conclusion: crows are black

This is confirmation bias.

 

[blutoski]

I disagree on the fundamental basis that they are different fallacies. One deals with data (confirmation bias, i.e. only choosing supporting data and ignoring all others), and the other deals with a logical argument. You can have one and the other, or any variation thereof.

Confirmation bias is not about 'choosing' - it's about 'seeking'.

Rejecting or ignoring contrary evidence is just ordinary wilful ignorance or rationalization. Not confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias happens in legitemate science quite a lot, and it's related to the expected variation in the sample.

Another example of confirmation bias is when people read their horoscopes looking for 'hits' - something that is predicted that came true.

It's not that they're wilfully ignoring the misses - they're just not looking for them in the first place. They're not doing a comprehensive review of the astrologer's predictions. One (big) hit is sufficient to support the hypothesis that the astrologer is legit.

 

[Jeff Corey]

No, you're right, it isn't a big deal.

I'm a little confused by your example, though. Where does flipping come into it?

The question is "Which card would you turn over..?" I think that's what B P means.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, no, no. No.

How did absence of confirmation bias fail to evolve?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, no, no. No.

How did absence of confirmation bias fail to evolve?

Exactly!

My speculation is that logical thinking in general is another byproduct of big brains that were mostly selected for their advantages living in a social group.

 

[Dogdoctor]

There are things that are more important evolutionary wise than critical thinking and so they were selected for. I mean just look around at populations of humans and you will quickly come to that conclusion (unless you have a confirmation bias )

 

[bpesta22]

I think humans are born being only potentially rational. One must be taught or discover the laws of logic (the later being impossible for most people).

 

[Taffer]

Nope. It's the way you try to confirm your hypothesis by seeking a confirmation, instead of seeking disconfirmation.

Hypothesis: crows are black

Strategy: look for black crows

Fact: I found a 100 black crows

Conclusion: crows are black

This is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is not about 'choosing' - it's about 'seeking'.

Rejecting or ignoring contrary evidence is just ordinary wilful ignorance or rationalization. Not confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias happens in legitemate science quite a lot, and it's related to the expected variation in the sample.

Another example of confirmation bias is when people read their horoscopes looking for 'hits' - something that is predicted that came true.

It's not that they're wilfully ignoring the misses - they're just not looking for them in the first place. They're not doing a comprehensive review of the astrologer's predictions. One (big) hit is sufficient to support the hypothesis that the astrologer is legit.

Fair enough.

I'll be quiet then.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Here was my original hypothesis of the evolutionary advantage of confirmation bias:

Although there is a clear advantage to correctly assessing cause and effect, there is also a social advantage to saving face.

If you believe something strongly and are revealed to be wrong, you lose face, which is likely to cause you to lose social status with the result that you lose desirable mates and are less likely to reproduce.

By ignoring evidence that you are mistaken, confirmation bias allows you to lie to yourself, and this is the most effective way to lie because it is undetectable. Being exposed as a liar certainly involves considerable loss of face.

This is an example I think of competing selection pressures. There must be a disadvantage to steadfastly being wrong about something against all evidence, but that is balanced out by the social advantage of appearing infallable.

I also concluded CB involved more than just seeking only evidence that confirmed, but also ignoring contrary evidence, from this part of the wiki article on CB:

None of the [brain] circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged [when partisans evaluated political statements]. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.... Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts'

Wiki article on Confirmation Bias

 

[Dancing David]

Well Mr. Scott, I think that is a little to specific, generally evolution works in broad strokes. It is usally more productive to ask, "What positive trait is this associated with?" Those are usually the traits that will pass on.

I will have to read the wiki article but that seems to lack an understanding of the issues discussed in the thread already.

Conscious reasoning is a rather specific series of traits and is not usually the sole determinant of judgement. there are many 'preconscious' and associative things going on in judgement.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Another quote suggesting an expanded idea of Confirmation Bias, this one about "Myside bias:"

The term "myside bias" was coined by David Perkins, myside referring to "my" side of the issue under consideration. An important consequence of the myside bias is that many incorrect beliefs are slow to change and often become stronger even when evidence is presented which should weaken the belief.

Again, that suggests that CB goes beyond simply not looking for evidence that one's treasured hypothesis may be false. It boggles my mind that evidence against one's belief can make that belief "even stronger."

Also, this about "Morton's Demon:"

Morton's Demon was devised by Glenn R. Morton in 2002[13] as part of a thought experiment to explain his own experience of confirmation bias. By analogy with Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon stands at the gateway of a person's senses and lets in facts that agree with that person's beliefs while deflecting those that do not.

Morton was at one time a Young Earth creationist (YEC) who later disavowed this belief. The demon was his way of referring to his own bias and that which he continued to observe in other YECs. With time it has become a common shorthand for confirmation bias in a variety of situations.

 

[Mr. Scott]

No, no, no. No.

How did absence of confirmation bias fail to evolve?

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitious to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitions to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

There are all sorts of emergent behaviors that come out of our complex brains. How often have you found yourself getting angry at an inanimate object, perfectly aware of how silly that is? We are good at constructing models of other people and animals based on their behaviors to predict what might be causing their behaviors, and what their intentions are. When we deal with complex machines that fail to do what we like, I think the part of our brain that is dedicated to determining what motivates others to annoy us misfires, and attributes emotions to inanimate objects, the same way pareidolia is a misfiring of the parts of our brain dedicated to recognizing the faces of people.

I think the confirmation bias is a consequence of a brain that's evolved to try to make sense of the world around it using complex, predictive models using abstract concepts. That's not easy. The model making bits have to construct a model that's accurate, but they have to do it as quickly as possible, with whatever information happens to be on hand. apply it to future events, and remain accessible into the future. Which kind of error is worse, bad models quickly, or good models slowly? Are false positives worse, or false negatives? We're asking a lot of a pile of cells. Correcting and fine tuning a model takes a lot of work and our brains are clearly good enough to have gotten us here, even if they can fool themselves.

 

[wuschel]

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitious to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

How so? Isn't it the undereducated or the religious or the undereducated religious who replicate at far higher rates than the rest?

Plus, like any of them will tell you: Confirmation Bias did not evolve, it was, of course, created!

 

[Dogdoctor]

Our minds still see things as cause and effect even though we should know that a mechanical or electronic device has no intention of doing anything to get us upset. You have to train your brain not to react emotionally. Traits that are adopted offer some benefit that is clearly an advantage to a species. It seems obvious to me that emotions are more important than critical thinking since we all have emotions but we don't all have the ability to be skeptical of everything. We may be evolving but I don't think skeptics represent the way of the near future human. In my mind social issues are more important and long before skepticism becomes important as an evolutionary trait as a trait, humanism will be widespread. In a society, not everyone needs to be skeptical in order for skepticism to beneficial. A few can use it to figure things out and the rest can benefit. So there won't be much selection pressure and also being skeptical is not associated with a greater fecundity^WP so it won't be selected for on that basis either. However it is important that we get along with each other for a society to prosper.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitious to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

Sounds like a goal-oriented sort of evolution you're talking about there!

Seriously, though, I think logical thinking is probably a by product of our big brains in general (which, I think, mostly evolved for their selective advantage to organism living in complex social groups--face recognition, ability to attribute intention, etc.) and probably our aptitude for language in particular.

 

[wuschel]

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitious to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

The reason why I comment once more on this is a very personal one.

I was born and raised in East Germany, basically under the influence of (at that time an already toned down version of) communist ideology. One remarkable aspect of the philosophy behind it was that humanity is sort of "bound to improve", IOW, that things are destined to get better as some sort of a natural law and the only choice one has is to either stand in the way or - help to speed up the natural way to eternal bliss.

I'm oversimplifying here, but that is what it eventually came down to. Do not make the mistake to assume anything about nature other than that "it" is perfectly indifferent and quite happy to develop into a state of affairs where organisms entirely focused on not being killed need to be killed by and in order for other organisms entirely focused on not being killed to survive.

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe absence of confirmation bias is currently evolving, and skeptics are spearheading that trend which will allow the superstitious to drift towards extinction. There must be some reproductive disadvantage in being dead wrong about things.

More deterministic thinking, only if you are dead wrong about things that effect reproductive success.

You don't get the way evolution most likely works.

You are showing the same errors of thought in insisting that confirmation bias should have an impact on survival leading to reproductive fitness.