This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
I have been inundated with confirmation bias examples of late, or at least it seems that way. It could just be... (wait for it) confirmation bias.
For the uniniated, confirmation bias is described like so:
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
I think my favorite anaology of confirmation bias is a screw: every time your bias is reinforced, the screw gets turned tighter, but nothing seems to ever turn it back and unscrew it.
The point is that whoever you are, whatever you do, whether you're a scientist, a politician, or a sage grouse, you can't rely on your gut feelings and perceptions alone. You may need some actual data, evidence, numbers--you know, stuff that isn't filtered through all your brain's weirdness. Are you hearing me, people? Don't fall victim to the bias of the confirmation. It's all too easy to do.
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
Thank you,
Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American
