How to recognize confirmation bias within one’s self

[Charles Collins]

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.

Thanks Benjamin. Those are some helpful suggestions.

[John Corbett]

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.

I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary

"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".

That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.

[John Corbett]

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.

I don't think my absolute conviction that Oswald was the assassin is in anyway a character flaw. It is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. There are some things worth being open minded about. The existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. But not the possibility of Oswald's innocence. That does not exist. I am proud to be closed minded about that.

I will confess to having a lack of humility. If it weren't for that character flaw, I'd be perfect.

[Charles Collins]

I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary

"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".

That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.

Yes, ignorance is often a huge factor. Some of the long-time club members I am dealing with are so upset at the situation that they adamantly refuse to even consider looking at the defendant”s presentation of their side of the issue. It is extremely frustrating to me for them to be like that.

[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.

Lance, it currently looks like the three members (including me) of our Disciplinary Committee may not be able to reach a unanimous decision. I am not trying to compare our committee to the Supreme Court. But I was reading how they operate and have a question I am hoping you might be able to explain to me. I can grasp most of the different opinions (majority, dissenting, & concurring) the Supreme Court can issue. But this last one is proving to be difficult for me.

“Fractured Decisions: Sometimes no single rationale commands a majority of the Court. In these rare "plurality" decisions, the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.”

I just need a little help understanding what that means. Please give it a try if you are interested. Thanks.

[Lance Payette]

My understanding is that in a plurality decision a majority of the judges agrees on what the final outcome should be, but not why. So they may write separate opinions as to why they agree with the result but explain their different reasons why they think that should be the result. (There may also be dissenting opinions, but those are not part of the plurality.) No single rationale commands a majority of the judges, so this is why it is not a majority decision. The statement "the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds" is new to me but seems to be correct. For example, a judge who thinks the case should be decided on some procedural technicality would be stating a "narrower ground" than one who thinks it should be decided on some evidential issue.

With a three-member disciplinaty panel, a plurality decision would require at least two of you to agree what the result should be (e.g., suspend the member for 30 days) but not necessarily why. Since you aren't concerned with the precedential value or "narrowest ground" of your decision, you don't have the same concerns as a court. Perhaps your club rules don't even require you to explain your reasoning - just issue a decision. If they require a unanimous decision, then three votes for the same result would satisfy that even though all three members had different reasoning. If they simply require a majority vote, then two votes would satisfy that even though the two members disagree on the reasoning. If the three panel members voted for exoneration, a 30-day suspension and a 60-day suspension, you'd have nothing and would have to hash it out.