• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cognitive Bias is Alive and Well and NO ONE is Immune

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Science suggests we’re hardwired to delude ourselves. Can we do anything about it?

Two great studies on Cognitive Bias:

The Cognitive Biases Tricking Your Brain: Science suggests we’re hardwired to delude ourselves. Can we do anything about it?

"The most effective check against them, as Kahneman says, is from the outside: Others can perceive our errors more readily than we can."

How To Recognize And Overcome Your Biases

Covers racism, sexism, and some other -isms.

Far from mere -isms, however, cognitive bias colors, distorts, and sometimes utterly obscures the way humans see the world. Many people have been absolutely certain X is true, based on the totality of their education, training, and life's experiences only to learn, often the hard way, that X wasn't true at all. Often, they thought Y to be false when Y was actually true.

Click graphic for full size:

The-Cognitive-Bias-Codex-More-than-180-Biases-Designed-by-John-Manoogian-III.png
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"The reality is that children already know the stereotypes attached to various groups by the time they're 4, 5, 6 years old," she says. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/03/13/biases-racism-sexism-psychology
Stereotype: Cops are generally good people...or, cops are generally bad people. More appropriately, generally cops do not do bad things. Or, am I displaying bias by not buying into the normative notion that cops, generally, are good people...or is it the other way around.

From the Atlantic piece:
Below are four cards. They are randomly chosen from a deck of cards in which every card has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. Your task is to say which of the cards you need to turn over in order to find out whether the following rule is true or false. The rule is: "If a card has an 'A' on one side, then it has a '4' on the other side." Turn over only those cards that you need to check the rule.

Box 1 - 4, Box 2 - B, Box 3 - A, Box 4 - 7

(a) Box 3 only (b) Boxes 1,2,3 and 4 (c) Boxes 3 and 4 (d) Boxes 1, 3 and 4 (e) Boxes 1 and 3

Because of confirmation bias, many people who haven’t been trained answer (e). But the correct answer is (c). The only thing you can hope to do in this situation is disprove the rule, and the only way to do that is to turn over the cards displaying the letter A (the rule is disproved if a number other than 4 is on the other side) and the number 7 (the rule is disproved if an A is on the other side). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/cognitive-bias/565775/
If it is a rule then no card(s) need be chosen. If a card must be chosen, there is no rule. Bush-league-psychout-stuff. Why should we question the rule if there is no evidence, evident, that indicates that the rule needs to be proved true or false...liberals...pfft

On how often it's actually true when people say they're not racist or sexist
The problem is, in today's society, I am not the one who has the final say.

But the nurse response is so easily provided by her socialization experiences, our learning histories, perhaps where, when she was younger, in particular, women were more likely to be nurses than physicians. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/03/13/biases-racism-sexism-psychology
2 out of 3 doctors are men. 9 out of 10 nurses are women. Bias? Stereotype? How about a reasonable conclusion based on facts. Nope, not to liberal pencil necks looking for 'isms' where none may exist.

Finally:
On whether the U.S. as a country is getting better on the issue of bias

That's a great question, because we're having a challenging time right now. Since the election in 2016, there seems to be a shift in what is normatively acceptable, at least in some circles. I think there's been an unleashing of incivility and hostility in social media and other forums. But what I've been heartened by is the enduring commitment in many organizations that I've had the fortune to visit, where they stay committed to trying to create equality for all of their ... whether it's students in the university context,...
:rolleyes:
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The article cited is strictly geared towards a marketing concept, ‘hyperbolic discounting,’ which is nothing more than a rehashed mantra promoted strictly on a hypothesis it is based on well researched, peer reviewed, replicated by other researchers scientific study.

Sorry, the concept isn’t, the original early ‘60 Stanford “marshmallow” experiment dealt with ‘gratification’ and was conducted using 16 male and 16 female children, yes children > 3 to < 5 years of age, in Stanford’s nursery school.

The same Stanford researcher did the experiment again in ‘88...

In over 600 children who took part in the experiment, a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow. Age was a major determinant of deferred gratification.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

This experiment’s results based on a faulty premise and so forth is taught in Psy 101 as showing faulty conclusions reached based on using test subjects who lack appropriate cognition capabilities to understand instruction as well as lacking attention span capabilities.

bogus science at its best and has nothing to do with adult psyche.

garbage in garbage out but useful for marketing ploys, such as General Tom Thumb, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc.,

Oh and Atlantic articles!

 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
bogus science at its best...

Oh and Atlantic articles!

Clearly you're biased!

On a more serious note, the marketing professor merely confirmed decades of double-blind, peer-reviewed research studies numbering in the thousands yet all you can do is respond with "bogus science..."

Ok...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Clearly you're biased!

On a more serious note, the marketing professor merely confirmed decades of double-blind, peer-reviewed research studies numbering in the thousands yet all you can do is respond with "bogus science..."

Ok...


Yes of course, thousands of ‘decades, double blind, peer-reviewed’ studies all based off the 1960 Stanford “marshmallow” study using 4 year old nursery school children as participants!

Thanks, got a great chuckle from your extravagant hyperbole!

thousand(S) you say, ALL double blind and ALL peer reviewed, oh my, sorry...can’t type... laughing way too hard imagining all those thousands of doctoral candidates approaching their PIs to replicate the marshmallow study at nursery schools across this nation...

but for today, with marshmallow(s) clutched in my hand, i shall eat them without guilt, as i might not be alive in 15 minutes to receive the second batch from my benefactors.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posted by since9

Clearly you're biased!

On a more serious note, the marketing professor merely confirmed decades of double-blind, peer-reviewed research studies numbering in the thousands yet all you can do is respond with "bogus science..."

Ok...
Yes of course, thousands of ‘decades, double blind, peer-reviewed’ studies all based off the 1960 Stanford “marshmallow” study using 4 year old nursery school children as participants!

Thanks, got a great chuckle from your extravagant hyperbole!

thousand(S) you say, ALL double blind and ALL peer reviewed, oh my, sorry...can’t type... laughing way too hard imagining all those thousands of doctoral candidates approaching their PIs to replicate the marshmallow study at nursery schools across this nation...

but for today, with marshmallow(s) clutched in my hand, i shall eat them without guilt, as i might not be alive in 15 minutes to receive the second batch from my benefactors.
Your response to this since9 is an imposter because the real sine9 has you on his ignore list.
 
Top