How to recognize confirmation bias within one’s self

[Charles Collins]

This is a request for people who might have had some success in recognizing their own confirmation biases and have perhaps had some success in trying to eliminate them when they become a problem. I am guessing that Lance might have some experience (from his career as a lawyer) along these lines and might have some suggestions for eliminating or reducing it.

Currently I am struggling with my own confirmation bias regarding a disciplinary committee investigation that I am leading for a club I have been associated with and a member of for almost all of my 72 years on earth. After often finding myself doing internal 180-degree turnarounds with my assessments of the evidence for a while, it finally dawned on me that my confirmation bias had started me out searching for evidence that tended to show guilt and discounting other evidence that tended to give the other member a defensible position. Once I realized this bias of mine, I began to look at the investigation differently (and I believe more properly). I believe the realization came about as a result of trying to understand my own assessment flip flops.

Anyway, I believe this is also somewhat similar to the what can happen to the biases I see regularly in the JFKA discussions online. So this post isn’t off-topic in my opinion. If we can have a reasonable discussion about this, it might even help some of us avoid a lot of problems in our quests for some answers to the controversy that is the JFKA.

Please respond if you have some constructive ideas or similar experiences. Thanks.

[John Corbett]

I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.

[Charles Collins]

I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.

Thank you John. I think that many of the people that “can’t figure it out” haven’t studied the evidence with an open mind. (Which is what I was doing at first with the investigation at the club.) And some of the people who  “can’t figure it out” haven’t really studied the evidence at all.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.

I don't understand how you can say you were on both sides - that is, you were once a conspiracy believer - and then say you are "baffled that so many people can't figure it out." You can't remember what led you to the conspiracy side?

I too was a conspiracist but clearly remember what led me to that conclusion. So I can understand why others make the same mistakes I did. E.g., the SBT, timing of the shots, Zapruder film and JFK's reaction. I can add that I had a belief that history can't be changed so easily and that great events need a great cause. And Oswald with a $20 rifle could not be that cause. Now I know that even a nobody like Oswald can alter history by himself.

[Lance Payette]

A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. 

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.

[Benjamin Cole]

GC:

Chess playing is an interesting past time...as you must think along the lines what your opponent will do.

Try to see it from the other side.

Try to construct an argument from the "other side," in the role of a prosecuting or defense lawyer.

As an adult, maybe the option of joining debate teams (which they have in schools) is not possible, but that is another good exercise.

I see constant and heavy bias in both JFKA CT and LNT groups.

And yes, I agree with John Corbett, I am seduced by no comforting falsehoods ever, and stand like a righteous pillar for truth, justice and omniscient conclusions.

[Charles Collins]

A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. 

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.

Thank you very much Lance. That’s the type of response I was hoping for. And you said some things that are very helpful.