Great article, great topic, and great discussion on the response boards. Understanding that we ALL have confirmation bias, including those of us who are pretty smart and scientifically literate, is an important paradigm. Who among us doesn't have a pet theory that shades our analysis of any given set of facts?
Good article on an important bias. One thought: it goes too far to say that consensus is groupthink, as it omits the countless instances where consensus is correct (the earth revolves around the sun, etc.). That is important because we rely on these to build the next layer of science. The problem is in the areas where we are still trying to establish "facts." On occasion, brilliant things often come from a wholesale reconsideration of the presumed base of knowledge (as Einstein and Copernicus showed). But we cannot spend all our time challenging every consensus every day, or we will not conceptualize what we need to do next. To plagiarize Run-DMC, it's tricky.
In my view, the problem is not consensus per se. The problem is when consensus is used to shut down any alternative explanations and divergent evidence. That's when it evolves into groupthink. As Matt points out, "A vital part of science is that it has been decentralised, both geographically and financially, so that Prof B has no hesitation in arguing that Prof A is talking through his test tube. This has now changed. Funding flows through a few highly centralised pipes; and in field after field there is an imposed “consensus” as to which hypothesis is right." The issue today is that any new research that doesn't conform to this "right" answer will simply not be funded or published, even if funded.
Agreed, but I still think it is tricky, at least for me. I tend to rebel against groupthink and consensus when I think it is wrong. Then I am all for challenge and rigor and iconoclasm. But that can also be part of my own bias. And i think of all of the crazy, sometimes malignant, conspiracy theories out there, twisting what seems to me obvious facts on which the vast majority of people agree. But they see themselves as brave voices bringing a new perspective to "groupthink." While I know that reason is the best (and eventually only) weapon to counter these, the idea that all consensus is groupthink (which has a pejorative connotation) gives me pause. It seems to me that we need to have a set of explanations, and even assumptions, on which we agree to function smoothly as a society, even as we need vigorous challenge.
Consensus Bias explains many things I have been concerned about. How should one counter this behavior? I have many friends who believe what they do because they want to be "with the majority" rather than coming to their own conclusions. This explains why they cannot be moved by evidence that is contrary to the position held by the majority. It also explains how people can get others to follow their crazy ideas.
After eight years of hundreds of thousands of weekly column readers, I now know for sure that nobody ever changes their mind about anything, ever. What to do? You have to get to them before they make up their mind. And you have to leave open the slight possibility that you might be wrong. /Bob Metcalfe
The genetics component is fascinating. Our genetic makeup does not fully explain who we become, but the influence on who we become is clear and compelling. Look up the Jim Twins, or read the Rational Optimist Deep Dive on genetic editing for some useful insights. https://www.rationaloptimistsociety.com/post/playing-god
Confirmation bias is so powerful, and so destructive, that one has to wonder why our education system, such as it is, does not teach kids what it is and how to address it in themselves. Moreover, why isn't there more discussion of confirmation bias among adults?
I pointed out to a couple of people that mentioned the fires in Europe and blamed it on climate change they those fires are actually edge cases based on the data of total acreage burned this year. NASA satellite data shows that significantly less acreage has burned globally than any year since those satellites were put into orbit (over 20 years). Their faces betrayed painful cognitive dissonance. They then go on to rattle of, "well, what about this and what about that?" I tried to point out that my point was simply that the fires in Europe are not proof of climate change. They could not just accept that. They got angry and needed to invest a lot of effort in reassuring themselves that their beliefs were true.
I think that it's human nature to hate being proved wrong. That trait is deeper among the true believer types. Those types tend to hold sway over education, the media, and politics, unfortunately. And they do not want anyone to have the intellectual facility to prove them wrong. Ever. So, the topic of cognitive dissonance is never taught.
Ok, that's my theory. Prove me wrong! You'll be wrong but you can try anyway.
I've found that it's almost never productive engaging in discussion with people who've accepted the theory of catastrophic climate change. I had the same experience with people who keep trying to argue that extreme weather events have increased over time. I pointed out that even the IPCC doesn't claim that except for a few very specific exceptions, and they immediately try to pull the discussion into all sorts of random tangents and/or ad hominem attacks.
Good article. The lie that our character is somehow "encoded" in our DNA is used to deny human volition and individuality. It is designed to box people into groups which can be pitched against each other and controlled politically by the first wannabe dictator.
I've known for a long time how dangerous confirmation bias is and how in general it dominates discussions of issues. And yet even by the end of this really brilliantly composed article I was still scratching my head and wondering why my simple, automatic answer to the question of how to test the "rule" was't the right one. That's the point, right? Thanks, Matt. So I did a prompt and got the following answer and it still took me some study to figure it out.
AI Mode Conversation: Wason later did an even more striking experiment. He presented subjects with four cards, each of which had a letter on one side and a number on the other: The visible side of the four cards read D, F, 3, 7. Which two cards do you have to turn over to check the rule “if a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other”?
You must turn over the D and 7 cards.
Why these two cards?The rule follows a conditional logic format: If P, then Q (If D, then 3). To test this rule, you must look for instances that could prove it false.
The D card (P): You must check this to ensure there is a 3 on the other side. If there is any other number, the rule is broken.
The 7 card (Not Q): You must check this to ensure there is not a D on the other side. If a D is on the back, a card with a D has a 7 instead of a 3, breaking the rule.
Why not the other cards? The F card: The rule says nothing about what happens with an F.
The 3 card: The rule does not say that a 3 must only have a D on the other side. It can have any letter.
Most people incorrectly choose D and 3 due to a psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias, where we look for information that confirms the rule rather than refutes it
Then explain it: explain how under D there could be any number *at all* and yet somehow that number has to be 3 based on turning over two of the other cards. (Keep in mind that he did not say that the two numbers displayed are the only possible numbers. If he had, that would put much greater constraints on what number could be under D.)
And assuming you can’t explain it without the addition of that constraint, then maybe I’m not the one showing a bias here.
Hmm, not understanding your point. The rule to be evaluated is: “if a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other". So:
1. The 'D' card must be turned over to test that rule. If there is any number except '3', the rule is disproven by that card. If your point is that you'd have to test every card in the set with a 'D' on the letter side to prove the rule is foolproof, then you are correct.
2. There is no need to check the 'F' card because the rule relates only to cards having 'D' on their letter side.
3. There is no need to check the '3' card because the rule does not exclude a '3' being on the flip side of cards having other letters than 'D'. The rule applies only to those cards having 'D' on the letter side.
4. The '7' card must be checked to see if there could be a 'D' on the letter side which would disprove the rule.
"The '7' card must be checked to see if there could be a 'D' on the letter side which would disprove the rule."
IFF there were a 'D' on the letter side would disprove the rule.
But if there is any other letter there is no information gain.
Or, do boring 'normal' science, do something for the replication crisis. Turn the three card, if it has a 'D' if confirms (just a little) ,but does not prove, the hypothesis that a 'D' is paired with a '3'.
Hmm, you might need to define 'pinhead', if not 'pinhead-thinking', before making bold statements such as that. If I understand your comment - it appears to dismiss Ridley's thesis based on its title alone, you are (deliberately?) overlooking the detailed context provided by the article and, instead, judging it by its title alone.
Ridley doesn't claim that ALL consensuses are the product of or examples of groupthink. Is there a chance that your comment exemplifies the type of thinking you've referred to?
Popper formulates the methodological principle of attempting to falsify theories, while Wason demonstrates experimentally that people find it difficult to put this principle into practice
I believe your example of df37 is incorrect given your question as phrased. The question as phrased asks nothing of the f or 7 card. We don’t know if d has a 3 . If it does we can move on. Now only the 3 card can have a d or not. If it does then we can assume d and 3 go together. I believe the author you quoted asked the question differently which allowed for more variance such as blue card have only even numbers or red cards have only odd numbers.
Great article, great topic, and great discussion on the response boards. Understanding that we ALL have confirmation bias, including those of us who are pretty smart and scientifically literate, is an important paradigm. Who among us doesn't have a pet theory that shades our analysis of any given set of facts?
I do not have any such theories. And facts to the contrary are wrong.
Good article on an important bias. One thought: it goes too far to say that consensus is groupthink, as it omits the countless instances where consensus is correct (the earth revolves around the sun, etc.). That is important because we rely on these to build the next layer of science. The problem is in the areas where we are still trying to establish "facts." On occasion, brilliant things often come from a wholesale reconsideration of the presumed base of knowledge (as Einstein and Copernicus showed). But we cannot spend all our time challenging every consensus every day, or we will not conceptualize what we need to do next. To plagiarize Run-DMC, it's tricky.
In my view, the problem is not consensus per se. The problem is when consensus is used to shut down any alternative explanations and divergent evidence. That's when it evolves into groupthink. As Matt points out, "A vital part of science is that it has been decentralised, both geographically and financially, so that Prof B has no hesitation in arguing that Prof A is talking through his test tube. This has now changed. Funding flows through a few highly centralised pipes; and in field after field there is an imposed “consensus” as to which hypothesis is right." The issue today is that any new research that doesn't conform to this "right" answer will simply not be funded or published, even if funded.
Just because the idea is so far supported by evidence doesn't disqualify it as groupthink.
Agreed, but I still think it is tricky, at least for me. I tend to rebel against groupthink and consensus when I think it is wrong. Then I am all for challenge and rigor and iconoclasm. But that can also be part of my own bias. And i think of all of the crazy, sometimes malignant, conspiracy theories out there, twisting what seems to me obvious facts on which the vast majority of people agree. But they see themselves as brave voices bringing a new perspective to "groupthink." While I know that reason is the best (and eventually only) weapon to counter these, the idea that all consensus is groupthink (which has a pejorative connotation) gives me pause. It seems to me that we need to have a set of explanations, and even assumptions, on which we agree to function smoothly as a society, even as we need vigorous challenge.
Consensus Bias explains many things I have been concerned about. How should one counter this behavior? I have many friends who believe what they do because they want to be "with the majority" rather than coming to their own conclusions. This explains why they cannot be moved by evidence that is contrary to the position held by the majority. It also explains how people can get others to follow their crazy ideas.
After eight years of hundreds of thousands of weekly column readers, I now know for sure that nobody ever changes their mind about anything, ever. What to do? You have to get to them before they make up their mind. And you have to leave open the slight possibility that you might be wrong. /Bob Metcalfe
The Francis Bacon quote is excellent.
The genetics component is fascinating. Our genetic makeup does not fully explain who we become, but the influence on who we become is clear and compelling. Look up the Jim Twins, or read the Rational Optimist Deep Dive on genetic editing for some useful insights. https://www.rationaloptimistsociety.com/post/playing-god
Confirmation bias is so powerful, and so destructive, that one has to wonder why our education system, such as it is, does not teach kids what it is and how to address it in themselves. Moreover, why isn't there more discussion of confirmation bias among adults?
I pointed out to a couple of people that mentioned the fires in Europe and blamed it on climate change they those fires are actually edge cases based on the data of total acreage burned this year. NASA satellite data shows that significantly less acreage has burned globally than any year since those satellites were put into orbit (over 20 years). Their faces betrayed painful cognitive dissonance. They then go on to rattle of, "well, what about this and what about that?" I tried to point out that my point was simply that the fires in Europe are not proof of climate change. They could not just accept that. They got angry and needed to invest a lot of effort in reassuring themselves that their beliefs were true.
I think that it's human nature to hate being proved wrong. That trait is deeper among the true believer types. Those types tend to hold sway over education, the media, and politics, unfortunately. And they do not want anyone to have the intellectual facility to prove them wrong. Ever. So, the topic of cognitive dissonance is never taught.
Ok, that's my theory. Prove me wrong! You'll be wrong but you can try anyway.
I've found that it's almost never productive engaging in discussion with people who've accepted the theory of catastrophic climate change. I had the same experience with people who keep trying to argue that extreme weather events have increased over time. I pointed out that even the IPCC doesn't claim that except for a few very specific exceptions, and they immediately try to pull the discussion into all sorts of random tangents and/or ad hominem attacks.
Good article. The lie that our character is somehow "encoded" in our DNA is used to deny human volition and individuality. It is designed to box people into groups which can be pitched against each other and controlled politically by the first wannabe dictator.
Denying human individuality and agency leads to a victim mentality. If nothing is anybody's fault...
I've known for a long time how dangerous confirmation bias is and how in general it dominates discussions of issues. And yet even by the end of this really brilliantly composed article I was still scratching my head and wondering why my simple, automatic answer to the question of how to test the "rule" was't the right one. That's the point, right? Thanks, Matt. So I did a prompt and got the following answer and it still took me some study to figure it out.
AI Mode Conversation: Wason later did an even more striking experiment. He presented subjects with four cards, each of which had a letter on one side and a number on the other: The visible side of the four cards read D, F, 3, 7. Which two cards do you have to turn over to check the rule “if a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other”?
You must turn over the D and 7 cards.
Why these two cards?The rule follows a conditional logic format: If P, then Q (If D, then 3). To test this rule, you must look for instances that could prove it false.
The D card (P): You must check this to ensure there is a 3 on the other side. If there is any other number, the rule is broken.
The 7 card (Not Q): You must check this to ensure there is not a D on the other side. If a D is on the back, a card with a D has a 7 instead of a 3, breaking the rule.
Why not the other cards? The F card: The rule says nothing about what happens with an F.
The 3 card: The rule does not say that a 3 must only have a D on the other side. It can have any letter.
Most people incorrectly choose D and 3 due to a psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias, where we look for information that confirms the rule rather than refutes it
🤦♂️ Ok, let's have your outliar on global climate change.
Nah, every consensus is wrong. The earth is flat and you should beat your kids daily.
Your explanation of the four-card experiment is insufficient, so of course most will get it “wrong”.
Respectfully, your reaction goes a long way toward explaining the prevalence of confirmation bias IMHO.
It's OK to be wrong, to understand why you are wrong - and, hardest of all, to accept being wrong.
I've seen this 'puzzle' multiple times and still got it wrong this time - altho I've gotten it right previously.
Then explain it: explain how under D there could be any number *at all* and yet somehow that number has to be 3 based on turning over two of the other cards. (Keep in mind that he did not say that the two numbers displayed are the only possible numbers. If he had, that would put much greater constraints on what number could be under D.)
And assuming you can’t explain it without the addition of that constraint, then maybe I’m not the one showing a bias here.
Hmm, not understanding your point. The rule to be evaluated is: “if a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other". So:
1. The 'D' card must be turned over to test that rule. If there is any number except '3', the rule is disproven by that card. If your point is that you'd have to test every card in the set with a 'D' on the letter side to prove the rule is foolproof, then you are correct.
2. There is no need to check the 'F' card because the rule relates only to cards having 'D' on their letter side.
3. There is no need to check the '3' card because the rule does not exclude a '3' being on the flip side of cards having other letters than 'D'. The rule applies only to those cards having 'D' on the letter side.
4. The '7' card must be checked to see if there could be a 'D' on the letter side which would disprove the rule.
Thanks for the thorough reply. It helped me see that (embarrassingly) I had misread the answer. Appreciate you setting me straight.
"The '7' card must be checked to see if there could be a 'D' on the letter side which would disprove the rule."
IFF there were a 'D' on the letter side would disprove the rule.
But if there is any other letter there is no information gain.
Or, do boring 'normal' science, do something for the replication crisis. Turn the three card, if it has a 'D' if confirms (just a little) ,but does not prove, the hypothesis that a 'D' is paired with a '3'.
"Consensus = groupthink" is pinhead-thinking !
Hmm, you might need to define 'pinhead', if not 'pinhead-thinking', before making bold statements such as that. If I understand your comment - it appears to dismiss Ridley's thesis based on its title alone, you are (deliberately?) overlooking the detailed context provided by the article and, instead, judging it by its title alone.
Ridley doesn't claim that ALL consensuses are the product of or examples of groupthink. Is there a chance that your comment exemplifies the type of thinking you've referred to?
Prove or disprove. Don't make a bald statement.
Care to falsify that?
You mean conformity is group think, definitely. Consensus is not group think. It’s hive mind. There’s a huge difference.
I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come.
Hugh Molson, British politician
Popper formulates the methodological principle of attempting to falsify theories, while Wason demonstrates experimentally that people find it difficult to put this principle into practice
I believe your example of df37 is incorrect given your question as phrased. The question as phrased asks nothing of the f or 7 card. We don’t know if d has a 3 . If it does we can move on. Now only the 3 card can have a d or not. If it does then we can assume d and 3 go together. I believe the author you quoted asked the question differently which allowed for more variance such as blue card have only even numbers or red cards have only odd numbers.