Lionel seems to misunderstand what confirmation bias means. He criticizes a distorted version of it. Anyone can see that the actual definition (the simplest of the actual ones) is that it is searching for evidence that supports our existing beliefs while ignoring the evidence that contradicts them. This second (and essential) part of the definition makes it a clear bias.
Definitions are socially accepted notions. Without references, it is unclear how the one you give is the "actual" one. The Nickerson paper I've cited, which has more than 8,600 citations, defines the confirmation bias that way: "the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand." The definition implies that interpretation of the evidence is part of the discussion about the confirmation bias. But note the "or": the confirmation bias is not the necessary conjunction of the two. The search for information and interpretation of information have been looked at separately in many research studies, in particular in economics (see for instance "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information", Jones and Sugden 2001). My post is clearly only about the search for information. Several people, including you, have brought up the matter of information interpretation. I consider your criticism to fall under this category, and I'm likely to address it in a future post.
I have taken the liberty of correcting the tone of my previous comment, as I now realise it was a little too rude. What I was arguing is that ignoring evidence that contradicts one's beliefs is implied in the word bias. In any definition of "confirmation bias", the confirmation is never a problem unless it is a bias. And it is a bias precisely because it is not objective in its assessment and judgement.
When it comes to definitions like Nikerson's, they are either definitions of something else and not confirmation bias, or they imply that the incongruent evidence is unavoidably ignored.
I'm sure it's the latter, and here's why. Let's have a closer look at what he says.
He points out that "the term (...) connotes the seeking or interpreting (...) of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs". The word "partial" is key here. Not only does it mean biased (as opposed to unbiased), but it also emphasises that only one part of the picture is being sought or interpreted (as opposed to impartial). If only one part is sought or interpreted (partial seeking or interpretation), then the other part is by necessity overlooked. Otherwise (in the case of seeking or interpreting both parts) one would not be doing it partially. Ignoring the other part is there by definition. You say that someone is partial because he or she takes the side of one part and not both - in such a case the other side is by definition at least overlooked - if not discarded or outright opposed and denied. You cannot focus on, seek out, consider, follow, observe, examine (or whatever else the confirmation bias makes you do) only one part of the argument and be impartial.
You cannot focus on, seek out, consider, follow, observe, examine (or whatever else confirmation bias makes you do) only one part of the argument and be impartial. That's why it's evident that when Nikerson talks about seeking "partial evidence" he means incomplete, and hence partially *ignored*, evidence.
On the other hand, if you were impartial and noticed, analysed, focused on and examined both sides of a story, then it would be absurd to call that confirmation bias. Focusing on one side as part of an effort to analyse both sides has never been called bias. Nobody says it is.
So taking that - a non-bias - as the subject of a post, and writing pages about how it is not a bias, is what I call straw-manning.
Thanks Michal for your thoughtful answer! I agree with you that there is an aspect of the "confirmation bias" that is not addressed in the piece. But the piece talks about a pattern which has been described as the confirmation bias in the literature. The point on the partiality of information gathering is interesting and I plan to address it in later posts.
Lionel seems to misunderstand what confirmation bias means. He criticizes a distorted version of it. Anyone can see that the actual definition (the simplest of the actual ones) is that it is searching for evidence that supports our existing beliefs while ignoring the evidence that contradicts them. This second (and essential) part of the definition makes it a clear bias.
Hi Michal,
Definitions are socially accepted notions. Without references, it is unclear how the one you give is the "actual" one. The Nickerson paper I've cited, which has more than 8,600 citations, defines the confirmation bias that way: "the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand." The definition implies that interpretation of the evidence is part of the discussion about the confirmation bias. But note the "or": the confirmation bias is not the necessary conjunction of the two. The search for information and interpretation of information have been looked at separately in many research studies, in particular in economics (see for instance "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information", Jones and Sugden 2001). My post is clearly only about the search for information. Several people, including you, have brought up the matter of information interpretation. I consider your criticism to fall under this category, and I'm likely to address it in a future post.
Hi Lionel,
I have taken the liberty of correcting the tone of my previous comment, as I now realise it was a little too rude. What I was arguing is that ignoring evidence that contradicts one's beliefs is implied in the word bias. In any definition of "confirmation bias", the confirmation is never a problem unless it is a bias. And it is a bias precisely because it is not objective in its assessment and judgement.
When it comes to definitions like Nikerson's, they are either definitions of something else and not confirmation bias, or they imply that the incongruent evidence is unavoidably ignored.
I'm sure it's the latter, and here's why. Let's have a closer look at what he says.
He points out that "the term (...) connotes the seeking or interpreting (...) of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs". The word "partial" is key here. Not only does it mean biased (as opposed to unbiased), but it also emphasises that only one part of the picture is being sought or interpreted (as opposed to impartial). If only one part is sought or interpreted (partial seeking or interpretation), then the other part is by necessity overlooked. Otherwise (in the case of seeking or interpreting both parts) one would not be doing it partially. Ignoring the other part is there by definition. You say that someone is partial because he or she takes the side of one part and not both - in such a case the other side is by definition at least overlooked - if not discarded or outright opposed and denied. You cannot focus on, seek out, consider, follow, observe, examine (or whatever else the confirmation bias makes you do) only one part of the argument and be impartial.
You cannot focus on, seek out, consider, follow, observe, examine (or whatever else confirmation bias makes you do) only one part of the argument and be impartial. That's why it's evident that when Nikerson talks about seeking "partial evidence" he means incomplete, and hence partially *ignored*, evidence.
On the other hand, if you were impartial and noticed, analysed, focused on and examined both sides of a story, then it would be absurd to call that confirmation bias. Focusing on one side as part of an effort to analyse both sides has never been called bias. Nobody says it is.
So taking that - a non-bias - as the subject of a post, and writing pages about how it is not a bias, is what I call straw-manning.
Thanks Michal for your thoughtful answer! I agree with you that there is an aspect of the "confirmation bias" that is not addressed in the piece. But the piece talks about a pattern which has been described as the confirmation bias in the literature. The point on the partiality of information gathering is interesting and I plan to address it in later posts.