"Source Bias" and Confidence Men

[Alan Mendelson]

Bingo. It's pretty well accepted that we are biased towards our own opinions.

Now here's the weird part. Since the ratio of personal opinions to right and wrong opinions is a 1 to 1 correlation, any particular thought is no more likely than any other to be correct as a result of it being ours. That having been said, everyone favors their own opinions right or wrong. Wow heavy mind bender!

Now let's tackle consensus bias. Since beliefs that are pleasant are more likely to be accepted, would the argument that most people believe a certain way be more likely to make that belief true or false?

You gave me a sleepless night with this one, Frank. Unless you have a split personality YOU cannot be your own "information source."

Let's look at your original two-part question:

Now to keep the conversation going:

1. What single informational source do we think would be the one we are most likely to be positively biased towards???

2. And (If you got the answer to #1) what types of people do we think would be less susceptible to this type of bias, high IQ or low IQ???

~FK

An informational source must be an outside influence. It cannot be your own imagination, unless of course you are Eve listening to one of your many other personalities who are trying to tell you how to act or what to believe. An informational source must be someone else or something else.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Alan, just tuned in here but want to give you my thoughts on what you wrote about " An informational source must be an outside influence".

Imagine no TV, radio, media of any type, no other people......................Or let's say you wake up to a rainstorm..............no one has to tell you it's raining. It's your own senses that hopefully can do that for you. I think that's the thought behind Frank's answer to #1.

Let's say you're a pedestrian at a traffic signal and for some reason everyone walks at the wrong time. Without your own eyes and ears, you might also join them. But you don't because of your own info.

Now this actually takes me a little off subject, but one of my interests is dementia. Dementia patients are extremely vulnerable people who have lost some of their most important information source(s). Their own.

Alan, may I add I completely "get" and respect your POV and reasoning. Thanks.

[Frank Kneeland]

You gave me a sleepless night with this one, Frank. Unless you have a split personality YOU cannot be your own "information source."

Let's look at your original two-part question:

Now to keep the conversation going:

1. What single informational source do we think would be the one we are most likely to be positively biased towards???

2. And (If you got the answer to #1) what types of people do we think would be less susceptible to this type of bias, high IQ or low IQ???

~FK

An informational source must be an outside influence. It cannot be your own imagination, unless of course you are Eve listening to one of your many other personalities who are trying to tell you how to act or what to believe. An informational source must be someone else or something else.

It's an interesting distinction but not one I make. You could replace the word "information" with "counsel" or "belief" or "opinion". Anyway, if you read something, it is impossible to do so without interpreting it and putting your own spin on it. So even information that begins from without is still coming from within. According to Michael Shermer the research says that beliefs come first, and information second. So most beliefs are in fact internal, even if we then sort through random information to only pick out the parts that support our desires.

You might think an idea came from someone or somewhere else, but you aren't factoring in the source selection process which is largely internal.

People do have original thoughts as well, and for any of these, calling yourself the source seems perfectly reasonable. I doubt if Newton credits anyone else for the Laws of Motion.

You are thinking too much like a reporter. For normal non-media folks, calling yourself an information source is as normal as picking a restaurant to eat at. It is not imperative to me that someone else told me it was good.

[Frank Kneeland]

Interesting discussion there, guys. I am intrigued by Frank's comment:

As far as I know the disturbing reality is that the most popular beliefs tend to be the least provable.

When it comes to popular beliefs that can't be proved perhaps the biggest is that of "life after death" and I remember when I worked at CBS News back in the 1970s we had a discussion about that in the newsroom during an overnight "lull" (yes there were some slow nights in the news biz). And Reid Collins who at the time was the primary morning radio anchor (he later went to CNN) said something I will never forget. He said: "proof positive of life after death would be the greatest news story of all time."

Well now you've done it. I think we better not try to challenge that particular belief. I would like to tell a story.

At my mothers funeral the split between atheists and believers was about 50/50. Almost without fail the non-believers were crying their eyes out and the believers were smiling, happy that she had, "gone to a better place". Never in my life had I seen such dichotomy and the obvious benefit that the believers were getting from "knowing" that there was an afterlife.

Several days later I watched a BBC series called The Human Sexes by Desmond Morris, where he detailed how most, if not all religions grew out of funerary practices (which themselves developed to lessen the sting of death). What can I say, for me the penny dropped. We must always be most careful of beliefs that make us feel better.

I am not trying to challenge a belief in the the after life. It is worth noting that whatever your beliefs on the subject, you'll find little consensus across distance and time, yet all cultures have it to some degree.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, here's my belief: we are born into this world with a blank slate. And we learn what is good and what is bad. Some of what we learn comes from others who tell us. Some of what we learn comes from outside natural forces such as heat and cold and pain and taste and touch and smell. I hope that somehow fits in with the point you're making.

[Frank Kneeland]

Let's add a little more to the discussion. If the rightest and wrongness of beliefs was purely dependent on the facts then we would not expect to find a correlation with belief and neurochemistry, but we do. There is a very strong correlation between dopamine levels, belief and skepticism. Paternity (seeing patterns in meaningless noise) can even be triggered in skeptics by increasing their dopamine levels with drugs like L-Dopa.

Would you be inclined to think a belief was true, if it is known that a psychoactive drug was more prevalent in all the people that subscribed to it?

~FK

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I don't know Frank, but the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

Or would you argue that the same rights that protect the masses also protect the individual?

[Frank Kneeland]

I don't know Frank, but the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

Or would you argue that the same rights that protect the masses also protect the individual?

Well gosh Lucky, I've never thought about it. I know next to nothing about politics. I couldn't even tell you what the difference was between a Republican and a Democrat. They're just labels without meaning to me.

I best not comment outside my areas of study.

[Alan Mendelson]

the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

I strongly disagree with this statement. Sure, the rights of an individual to free speech are protected-- and we know that-- but with limitations. An individual has no right to yell out "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. And an individual in this country does not have the right to call for the violent overthrow of the US Government.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry. It was brought to my attention that this thread was "locked." This was an error. We fixed it and the thread is open again. I don't know how this happened. Please, if anything like this happens please send a personal message to me. Thank you.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Let's add a little more to the discussion. If the rightest and wrongness of beliefs was purely dependent on the facts then we would not expect to find a correlation with belief and neurochemistry, but we do. There is a very strong correlation between dopamine levels, belief and skepticism. Paternity (seeing patterns in meaningless noise) can even be triggered in skeptics by increasing their dopamine levels with drugs like L-Dopa.

Would you be inclined to think a belief was true, if it is known that a psychoactive drug was more prevalent in all the people that subscribed to it?

~FK

I don't really look at the person giving the opinion or belief as much as I weigh the merits of the belief. If you were to give me a list of 10 beliefs in column A, and a list of 10 people with those beliefs in column B, unless I'm missing the point, who said what is less important than what was said. I'm not sure I'd find column B necessary.

I wouldn't discount or endorse a belief based on a psychoactive substance shared by those of the belief. Have I missed the point?

[Frank Kneeland]

I don't really look at the person giving the opinion or belief as much as I weigh the merits of the belief. If you were to give me a list of 10 beliefs in column A, and a list of 10 people with those beliefs in column B, unless I'm missing the point, who said what is less important than what was said. I'm not sure I'd find column B necessary.

I wouldn't discount or endorse a belief based on a psychoactive substance shared by those of the belief. Have I missed the point?

No you have not missed the point. Here's the scary thing, there is a direct correlation between certain beliefs and elevated levels of dopamine. Which for me puts those beliefs in a very dubious category.

High dopamine levels = Tendency to make type I errors
Low dopamine levels = Tendency to make type II errors

~FK

[Lucky(St)Louis]

While I'm confident I've proven your point that self is the primary source bias, why do your posts lead to more questions?

What dopamine levels lead to typing errors?

Off topic: Rob, I hope your RV'ing is going well!

Life is stressful. How about some respectful fun with some "on topic" mixed in for good measure?

Frank, what is a Type I error vs a Type II error?

[Frank Kneeland]

1. While I'm confident I've proven your point that self is the primary source bias, why do your posts lead to more questions?

2. What dopamine levels lead to typing errors?

3. Off topic: Rob, I hope your RV'ing is going well!

4. Life is stressful. How about some respectful fun with some "on topic" mixed in for good measure?

5. Frank, what is a Type I error vs a Type II error?

1. There are always more questions. I prefer to answer the ones no one is asking.
2. Low, as it is important in muscle control.
4. What is this "fun" thing of which you speak?
5. Sorry I covered that earlier in the another thread:...

Type I error = Seeing patterns that are not there.
Type II error = Missing patterns that are there.

I wrote about it in another post that started with: You are walking in a field and hear a noise in the grass, you think it is a dangerous predator. It is only the wind, you have made a type I error.

~FK

[Lucky(St)Louis]

1. There are always more questions. I prefer to answer the ones no one is asking.
2. Low, as it is important in muscle control.
4. What is this "fun" thing of which you speak?
5. Sorry I covered that earlier in the another thread:...

Type I error = Seeing patterns that are not there.
Type II error = Missing patterns that are there.

I wrote about it in another post that started with: You are walking in a field and hear a noise in the grass, you think it is a dangerous predator. It is only the wind, you have made a type I error.

~FK

Isn't an answer to a question no one has asked anything but an answer. Maybe a statement, another question........until the question has been asked. What if the question is never asked? I don't think it qualifies as an answer in that case. From a practical point of view, it's too risky.

Fun would be saying, "Frank, what do you think will happen Dec. 21, 2012?" Fun is also extremely subjective. I used the wrong word.

I remember the "noise in the grass".......................thanks for the reminder.

What about point #3 ?

[Frank Kneeland]

Isn't an answer to a question no one has asked anything but an answer. Maybe a statement, another question........until the question has been asked. What if the question is never asked? I don't think it qualifies as an answer in that case. From a practical point of view, it's too risky.

Fun would be saying, "Frank, what do you think will happen Dec. 21, 2012?" Fun is also extremely subjective. I used the wrong word.

I remember the "noise in the grass".......................thanks for the reminder.

What about point #3 ?

I will not beg the question or answer your question with a question but instead I will answer that I would like to get people to question the answers to the questions the thought they had the answers to without question.

I heard Dec 21st had been canceled due to lack of interest.

Point #3 was not for me.