Term of the Day: Confirmation Bias / Normalcy Bias

Confirmation Bias Definition | Investopedia

A psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore information that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias occurs when people filter out potentially useful facts and opinions that don’t coincide with their preconceived notions. It affects perceptions and decision making in all aspects of our lives and can cause us to make less-than-optimal choices. Seeking out people and publications with different opinions than our own can help us overcome confirmation bias and make better-informed decisions. http://www.web2pointsomething.org/2011/12/19/feature-article-confirmation-bias-in-the-internet-age/ FEATURE ARTICLE: CONFIRMATION BIAS IN THE INTERNET AGE Posted by: Angeladu | | December 19, 2011 Confirmation Bias refers to “a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and look for what confirms ones beliefs, and to ignore, not look for,  or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts ones’ beliefs. Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data”. In fact… “A study done at Ohio State in 2009 showed that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view than those that challenged their beliefs and many didn’t read any opposing view articles at all”.    In Stephen Mills’s article “The Modern Decline in Independent Thinking“, he discusses how the internet influences individuals’ thinking. In particular, Stephen mentions that groupthink causes the problem of confirmation bias, which eliminates the effectiveness of independent thinking. The internet provides a virtual world that allows individuals to share their opinions regardless of the color, race or creed. That is to say, the internet is supposed to stand for freedom of speech. Nevertheless, if people participate in a networked community, their ability of thinking will be diminished.    Accroding to Stephen, he discovers “groupthink inhibits alternatives, minimizes conflict, and enforces conformity. The need to maintain consistency will push you to continue with the same position once it is articulated”. Is it true that groupthink has such power? Let me give you an example… The reason why the internet appeals to us is because we find ideas that resonate with our own thoughts. Suppose you think social media such as Facebook.com fosters transnational communication. And you find a discussion board online which has an identical point of view. Of course, you will be happy to join the group and continue the discussion. As the group becomes larger, the credibility of the initial topic increases. Imagine a random person who is not sure whether social media can develop worldwide communication or not. But he or she happens to open your webpage. A good chance is that the person makes up his or mind to become one of your followers.  Stephen explains this phenomenon in his article, “information availability means we inevitably will suffer from confirmation bias.  We are not becoming more objective and open minded, we are becoming more committed to our existing beliefs”.    I am not sure this whole idea-following thing is working. In the end, Stephen gives us some suggestions about how to become an independent thinker. Let us hear from him… 1. “You have to get out of all the polarizing debates and groups and away from your fellow devotees and do something that doesn’t feel natural”. 2. “You have to do some hard thinking primarily by yourself; without your standard arguments ready and waiting”. 3. “As long as you understand both the power and danger of groups and act accordingly, you can enjoy the benefits and mitigate the dangers of this new connected world.  The only thing have to gain is your own independent mind”. Here is what I recommend…

			Confirmation Bias Definition | Investopedia A psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore informati...
			View on lists5.investopedia.com	Preview by Yahoo

The Internet is the greatest detractor to serious thinking since the invention of television”.

- Leo Chalupa, Neurobiologist, University of California, Davis

Is the Internet Changing the Way You think? The Net’s Impact on Our Minds andFuture. Edited by John Brokman. (New York: Harper Perennial, 2011).

   Internet has already become an inevitable part of our life. I think the best advantage that we take from the internet is efficiency. The internet saves us a lot of time in finding things. Say a student wants to write an essay about earthquake. She opens Google.com and types in the word earthquake. Less than one second, the internet offers her 167,000,000 results that relate to the earthquake topic. Then, what happens next? Click, click, click… She gets what she wants by simply controlling her mouse instead of spending hours in a library. I believe most of us have the same experience in our life. It is just so convenient that we search whatever we want to know on the internet. However, my question is do you take whatever appears on the internet for granted? or, do you judge the credibility of any arguments made on the internet?

   

--

And another one of the big problems that we are facing is something called "normalcy bias".  The following is how Wikipedia defines it...

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

Where in the world is Marco Scutaro?

It appears as if we are about to find out. No surprise given the comments from the brass, it appears very likely that where in the world Marco Scutaro will not be in 2015, is anywhere near San Francisco.

from HardballTalk:
Giants’ training staff preparing an update on Marco Scutaro | HardballTalk:

In his column for the San Francisco Chronicle, John Shea reports that the Giants’ training staff is preparing an update on second baseman Marco Scutaro, and adds that it likely isn’t a good sign.  Scutaro was only able to play in five games during the 2014 season due to recurring back problems. The Giants owe him $6 million in 2015, the final year of a three-year deal he signed with the club back in December 2012. The 39-year-old veteran was productive for the Giants in 2013, posting a .726 OPS. Shea notes that the Giants never considered him as a potential replacement at third base once Pablo Sandoval left.

'via Blog this'

To my knowledge, he never appeared on the bench this season during his rehab, as did Cain, Pagan, Morse, etc. Sabean's cryptic comment along the lines of "we have his phone number around here somewhere" was telling, as was the "we have no viable internal options to replace Pablo at 3B".

We know they don't want to play Posey at 3B,  but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Scutaro, a former major league SS, could make the switch if healthy.

Combine those two statements and you get the impression that Scutaro will not be ready, willing and able to play anywhere for SF in 2015. Another $6M in salary flushed down the toilet.

We know Pablo felt disrespected. Now we may be learning that apparently somebody also pissed in Scutaro's Wheaties. Maybe spend some of the savings for not chasing / finishing in second place chasing James Shields for some sensitivity training for all Giants front office personnel and staff. Or start signing emotionally tougher players. Sheesh!!

Follow the Facts, the facts are your friend. Don't be afraid!!

How many more of these knuckle-heads have to be classified as leftist loons or government manufactured defects before we get some REAL accountability out of DC on the gun-control (grab?) issue? 

The LAPD cop (former Navy with high security clearance).

The Fort Hood shooter (military)

The Colorado theater joker was working on DARPA (Government project to create better killing machines out of soldiers)

Shouldn't it be clear to even Herrs Bloomberg, Feinstein,et. al.  that ordinary citizens need protection FROM the state criminals and mental defectives as well as normal, every-day, garden variety criminals and mental defectives? 

Seems like many of these lunatics are coming back stamped "Made by the U.S.A." And the media is always waiting to pounce on the first one that shows any prior history of conservative America written on them, all the while ignoring the crazies that bear the stamp of the leftist, lunatic fringe. 

PSYCHOSIS: a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.

It appears as if we are seeing what the after-effects of a decade worth of wars can do the the collective psyche and mental-health of a nation. We saw some of the same in the aftermath of the Vietnam war. 

FYI: Coming attractions: Iraq and Afghanistan wars are ending. PSTD tidal wave beginning

from abcnews.com

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/death-navy-seal-chris-kyle-puts-spotlight-ptsd/story?id=18393163

While the details of Routh's mental health are unclear, up to 20 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD, according to a 2008 RAND study.

from minutemennews.com

http://minutemennews.com/2013/02/does-psycho-cop-mean-police-weapons-should-be-banned/

So here is a man who, despite some kind of vetting process to serve on the police force, has gone "postal." He has already murdered a couple because the woman was on the panel that recommended his termination. A cop has died in a shootout with him. Others have been wounded. He is promising to kill more.

So where is the anti-second amendment media? Shouldn't they all be screaming about how American needs gun control and all police, or at least ex-police, need to be disarmed? Why isn't Piers Morgan asking "Why does anyone need that much firepower."

Well, as far as I can tell, the gun grabbers are remaining silent. They know that, in order to grab guns, gun grabbers need to be armed. And like all self-respecting people, no police officer is going to work willingly while being told he can't be trusted. Nothing Dorner does will make it acceptable to treat all other cops as if they are obligated to prove that they are better than Dorner.

from clashdaily.com

http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-5-worst-mass-murders-in-the-usa-with-a-firearm-came-from-democrats/

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.

Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men, and none of them had a strong male father or role model in the household. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.

Our problem isn't weapons, it's boys without boundaries. Who live in 'progressive' households.

Maybe we should just ban youth football too!!

Interesting little factoid. Maybe tucked into the Assault Weapons Ban II bill will be a provision to ban HS football or Pop Warner. Since it's a bout the kids and all.

I don't want to see either level of football banned any more than I want to see the Constitution trampled as much as it has over the past decade. We don't have much more to give up in terms of our rights. These idiot politicians, and you can start at the top, need to focus more on doing their jobs correctly and less on political theatre and grand-standing. Too many political divas. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

It helps if you take an honest look at the facts that are out there and put things in their proper perspective instead of whip-sawing from one manufactured crisis to another.

JOHNSON FIREARMS, Inc - Gun Facts:

* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns.

In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period. (6)

SOURCES:

1. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

6. For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) athttp://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm

22. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.

45. Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981). See also Richard W. Stevens, Dial 911 and Die (1999) which gives the laws and cases in all 50 states to support the statement that government (police) owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.

'via Blog this'

Random Mass Shootings, Gun Control and Mental Illness

This sign is symptomatic of the problem. We would love to be able to say all of the above are true, but it's not as easy as making a sign or a law saying something is so and then sleeping well at night believing that what the sign or law says reflects the realities of life. The fact is if you go to almost any school in the land that has one of these signs, you want have to look very hard or far to find out that what is posted just isn't so.

That's the easy part, identifying the problem. Next step, FIXING IT!!

I agree with this Newtown Dad speaking out when he says the answers "appear" to be so deceptively easy on the surface. But we make them complex by our failure to, first and foremost, take a long, hard look in the mirror and realize that some of the "answers" we thought we had right before in our culture, are increasingly found to be "dead wrong". And I don't use that phrase frivolously in this context.

We continue down the path of denial at our own continuing risk.

Newtown Father Speaks out on Gun Laws

from freedomoutpost.com
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/father-of-slain-6-year-old-sandy-hook-victim-gun-laws-are-not-the-problem/

In an emotional testimony, Mattioli said that more gun laws would not solve the problem and that politicians who try and proclaim that the issue is “complex.” He believes there is simply a lack of civility and that “what we are seeing are symptoms of a bigger problem. This is a symptom. The problem is not gun laws. The problem is a lack of civility.”

“We need civility,” he said. “We need common decency to prevail.”

Given the cultural differences of city vs. suburbs vs. rural living - One size fits all approach does not work

The culture is really the culprit here. 

The entire culture, not just the gun culture.  

Society at-large is increasingly going crazy. 

Mental Illness is much more widespread than recognized.

Much of what passes as normal today is just bat-poop crazy.

The overall homicide rate in the US peaked between 1975-1990 at just over 10 per 100K population.

In recent years,  it has decreased to between 5.5 - 6 per 100K. 

Overall violent crime has also fallen significantly during the time period.

Perhaps incarcerating many of the so-called "rational" criminals (gang members and career criminals) we are somehow missing the random crazies that walk among us until they perpetrate crimes like Columbine or VA Tech.

We need practical discussions about practical solutions. 

The drop in US violent crime is generally attributed to massive incarceration. 

The US already incarcerates a larger % of its population than any other advanced nation on earth. 

We used to institutionalize the mentally ill as well. But now we leave them primarily alone in the community, where they eventually become homeless or a danger to themselves or to others.

Deinstitutionalization - One size approach does not work

The consistent pattern since the 1960's with random mass shootings is mental illness. 

The phenomena of mass random shootings had its beginnings in the 1960s. 

It was as a result of one of the worst public policy ideas of the decade -- mass deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill population. 

Kennedy began the movement, Carter picked up the ball and carried it over the goal line. 

This led to the modern homelessness problem. 

In the 1980's, we all asked where the homeless were coming from and the answer was "Must be Reagonomics!" 

Now we know better. 

In the upper-middle class suburbs -- seemingly far removed from the inner city and the violence of drug wars and gangs -- it led to the phenomenon of random mass shootings. 

This problem seemingly didn't exist before the 60's -- at least not in magnitude -- because it was accepted that crazy people were to be under psychiatric supervision. Gun legislation was weaker then by comparison. 

De-institutionalization was a great idea, in theory. In practice not so much. 

The problem was that there were no real comprehensive plans for "support" in how to effectively serve people coming from institutions to the communities.

Budgets for mental health programs have been subject to the vulgarities of the budgeting process.  

Treating Mental Illness - One size fits all approach does not work

The mentally ill are now passed along from homeless shelters to halfway houses to local prisons for sporadic treatment at best. 

If they're on their medications, they're manageable, if not....

Part of the problem is that treating illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorders are fairly manageable in the community only if those people are in group homes, and they are closely monitored to take their medication and receive clinical support.

 If people with severe mental disorders are not closely monitored in professional settings, they often don't take their medications and their conditions deteriorate to a point where they become a danger to themselves or others. 

People with less severe mental disorders -- what would have been classified as neuroses in the past -- seem to do well without closer monitoring. 

So some have benefited from the process of deinstitutionlization, but clearly some have not. 

School have become drug-free zones, except to handle "behavioral issues"

We have turned disciplinary issues in the schools over to Big Pharma and the psychiatrists. 

Kids are calmed down with meds instead of detention or clapping erasers or any one of a number of methods used in the past to burn off excess energy and hyper-activity that kids inherently possess.

We bought into the "better living through chemistry" approach.

There is no "magic pill" to deal with the vagaries of growing up.  

The Universal Background Check Problem - One size fits all approach does not work

It is difficult to predict behavior.  If a given behavior has never manifested itself before, it is anyone's guess whether it will ever manifest itself. 

In terms of behavior, if something happens once, it's more likely to happen again within the context of a given individual's life. 

Unfortunately, the "once" may be so dangerous and tragic that society can not risk it happening a second time. 

So the question becomes, how do we balance public safety with the fundamental rights of the individual without treating innocent people unfairly. 

You certainly cannot punish someone on the basis of what they might do

You also cannot punish an entire class of people on the basis of the actions of a minority of people withing that class.

 That's the definition of prejudice and stereotypes.

We don't have effective treatments for serious mental illness, but at least we can detect seriously disturbed people earlier and put them under supervision or keep them out of general population without stigmatizing. 

Discussing options like that might offer practical solutions.

Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction:

Overview of Policies and Programs in Canada

Report 1

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/381/soci/rep/report1/repintnov04vol1part3-e.htm

CHAPTER 7:

Mental Health Service Delivery And Addiction Treatment In Canada: An Historical Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The history of mental health services and addiction treatment in Canada parallels the European and American experience.  The delivery of mental health services has, for the most part, evolved differently from the provision of addiction treatment throughout the last century.  This has led to the emergence of two distinct systems of care and support – one for individuals with mental illness and another for individuals suffering from addiction.  It is only during the last decade that efforts have been encouraged to better integrate the two systems.

The mental health service system and the addiction treatment system have struggled to provide the most compassionate and responsive treatment possible, but both have been dogged by the problem of stigma which had a negative impact on their development.  Arising out of widespread misunderstanding and broad misconceptions, individuals with mental illness were often labelled as “idiots”, “imbeciles” and “lunatics”, while addiction problems were perceived as a sign of personal weakness.  In some cases, a punitive attitude, exemplified by a desire to remove individuals with mental illness and addiction from public sight, has hampered the delivery of appropriate services.  Despite many advances in models of care, policies and legislation, negative perception and stigma still persist today (see Chapter 3, above).