this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1636 readers
2 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thought for the day.
When you read something that hits your confirmation bias button; do you look for competing views?
e.g. I just started reading "Ultra-processed people, the science behind food that isn't food" the amount of confirmation bias is truly staggering; I haven't had it like this in the past. A lot of the points are written down what I have been thinking for years (decades even).
I feel like I need to look for a competing view to check my existing bias, the author has done some of this and basically calls out the competing views as compromised by conflict of interest from the food industry.
Depends what it is. It can be fun to explore the other side. Sometimes infuriating when you discover that your bias was actually correct and the other side is actually full of idiots. Ie flat earth, communism, trickle down economics, people who make things out of old pallets.
This is very astute; there are some things where "the other side" is so clearly wrong that it doesn't warrant investigation; beyond the question of how people fall into these logical traps.
i.e. flat earth, 5g causing whatever.
It can be enlightening to examine the logical tricks/traps that are used to move people along these lines of thought. The tricks are similar to cults/religions radicalizing people.
Wait, please can you elaborate on that last one?
😂 That one was the joke one
Phew, I'm glad I still get to keep believing that this really happens!
I'm proof! My raised vege garden was built from a pallet. Now you have a legitimate 'my internet friend' argument.
Faith in pallet humanity restored!
Hmm that sounds really good actually, were you able to use just one pallet and cut the bottom out?
My dad built it - he pulled the whole thing apart and reassembled it. It's basically just a trough about eight inches off the ground, with a frame over the top for hanging bird netting over. He actually did a really job and could probably make some pocket money flicking them on the local facebook page.
That sounds really cool!
Are pallets generally untreated timber?
I think you get both - the one I was given is untreated but we lined it with plastic anyway is some of the gaps were a bit big.
No, I don't, and I've never really thought about it before. Being able to look at something objectively has never really been on my mind and with everything moving towards extremes (everything being climate and politics, the two favourite chew toys of the media) I guess it's something I've sort of fallen into.
I guess there's comfort in finding something that supports your own opinion and looking for competing ideas seems a bit like looking for something to stress about.
Cheers for the thought, that's given me something to ponder on the way to work this morning 🤔
Most people don't; this is what fuels division about any in group/out group system. Politics, religion, brands, sports....by not checking assumptions and bias, you are going with the comfortable.
It isn't always a bad thing to have a bias, but it is always good to examine ones bias and prejudice.
I try to. I started because I got so annoyed with others failing to do this.
However, I still fail at it often enough to occasionally embarrass myself.
Don't do it for them, do it for you.
It makes you more aware of your bias, and thus hopefully will consider the other side and its merits. I always remember the quote (though I can;t remember who said it) "no one is the villain in their own story", there will be a reason why they believe what they do, sometimes understanding will permit a dialog where friction will only cause more friction.
Instead of jumping straight to competing views I habitually first look at the basis for the view.
So for your example I would be looking at his sources of scientific information, checking that they do in fact say what he thinks they say and that they were published in journals of good standing.
Then I would look around the subject a bit and see if they represent the consensus or if there is debate over them.
I often see people argue competing views while accepting flawed premises. For example a person presenting the view that the measles vaccine was what was responsible for the notable worldwide rise in child respiratory illnesses in the same timeframe. The opposing argument was that correlation doesn't equal causation and there isn't necessarily a link.
But in reality when I took a look there wasn't even any correlation to begin with, as child respiratory infections have decreased in that timeframe. So in this case neither the view or the competing view are meaningful.
This is a very good point; if the premise is flawed, no argument can make it cogent.
In this specific example, the author provides extensive references to both papers that support his view and those that are countering his view, but then points out the conflicts of interest in the papers that are opposed, he doesn't seem to provide any conflict of interest information in the supporting papers, the reader is left to assume (beyond a few instances) that there are none.
That sounds good. I'd always want to take a look under the hood myself though.
Like, quickly check if what he's presented really is a representative sample of his opponents' output. Another good shortcut for if it's really not your field/intelligible to you, is to check what other reputable scientists are saying about his work and why.
My habit of double-checking facts can drive people a bit crazy though.
In my field, I generally will get multiple sources for complex things.
In other stuff that I'm interested in, I'm less rigorous. But in this instance, I feel the confirmation bias is so strong, I need to do a bit more checking.
Fair enough. I think I have the same bias as you about overly processed food.