healthbolt.net— A cognitive bias is something that our minds commonly do to distort our own view of reality. Here are the 26 most studied and widely accepted cognitive biases.
May 28, 2007View in Crawl 4
You should be aware that some of these make some pretty substantial assumptions. Take number 18 for instance:Omission bias - The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).It cannot be assumed that a harmful action is just as bad, or immoral, as a harmful inaction. Very many philosophers have debated this point for a very long time.
and if that was what you were saying, then we are in agreement. It's just that what you were saying is very hard to make out. Because I agree, assuming that what you say is that inaction is just as immoral as the actions that are inherently immoral. Or to try to quanitfy it, if you don't know that your nation is rounding up and gassing jews, then you can, weakly, claim ignorance. However, if you know that it is happening, but you've been led to believe that it is only for the defense of the homeland, then you are never going to avoid guilt, you will alway be responsible because you thought it was for your homeland security.
@Error6011. Re-read my post. I wasn't attacking religion, I simply stated that it, like all beliefs, is subject to the bandwagon effect.2. Even if I were attacking religion, there is nothing intellectually invalid in believing what the majority believes as long as one has arrived at that opinion through reason and not through irrationality, and as long as one has solid arguments to back one's opinion. A person who consistently avoids the majority opinion is as much a slave to it as one who perpetually seeks to endorse it.
@dodus (#6951019)So, what you're saying then is that in order for you to believe something, you have to have personally performed the scientific experimentation to prove it to yourself? That the work done by other scientists - those with more training and experience in the subject matter than you or I - is not valid until you personally have vetted it?I do believe that you yourself suffer from the knowledge bias I framed above. Which I could perhaps have reworded in this way:The tendency for people to put unreasonably more weight on their own limited experience than on the experience of others in making judgments.Another automobile analogy for you: Say I buy a Toyota, and the car is nothing but trouble for me. Because of this personal experience, I determine to believe that Toyotas are unreliable, and vow never to buy one again - regardless of the fact that almost every report on automobiles ranks Toyotas as among the most dependable vehicles on the market. My belief that Toyotas are unreliable is incorrect, in the face of this wide research, yet I cling to it, because it is the product of my own anecdotal experience.Another spin on it: people tend to believe that events are completely explainable using only the knowledge that they personally have at hand, and will generally attempt to construct explanations which satisfy them personally, regardless of how ridiculously incorrect those explanations are to people who have more expertise on the matter.
wenomspittaMay 29, 2007
27.Using wikipedia to back up your claims.
alexkrycekMay 30, 2007
You should be aware that some of these make some pretty substantial assumptions. Take number 18 for instance:Omission bias - The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).It cannot be assumed that a harmful action is just as bad, or immoral, as a harmful inaction. Very many philosophers have debated this point for a very long time.
phillesh69May 30, 2007
Cognitive Dissonance.
phillesh69May 30, 2007
and if that was what you were saying, then we are in agreement. It's just that what you were saying is very hard to make out. Because I agree, assuming that what you say is that inaction is just as immoral as the actions that are inherently immoral. Or to try to quanitfy it, if you don't know that your nation is rounding up and gassing jews, then you can, weakly, claim ignorance. However, if you know that it is happening, but you've been led to believe that it is only for the defense of the homeland, then you are never going to avoid guilt, you will alway be responsible because you thought it was for your homeland security.
noamsmlMay 30, 2007
@Error6011. Re-read my post. I wasn't attacking religion, I simply stated that it, like all beliefs, is subject to the bandwagon effect.2. Even if I were attacking religion, there is nothing intellectually invalid in believing what the majority believes as long as one has arrived at that opinion through reason and not through irrationality, and as long as one has solid arguments to back one's opinion. A person who consistently avoids the majority opinion is as much a slave to it as one who perpetually seeks to endorse it.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2007
@dodus (#6951019)So, what you're saying then is that in order for you to believe something, you have to have personally performed the scientific experimentation to prove it to yourself? That the work done by other scientists - those with more training and experience in the subject matter than you or I - is not valid until you personally have vetted it?I do believe that you yourself suffer from the knowledge bias I framed above. Which I could perhaps have reworded in this way:The tendency for people to put unreasonably more weight on their own limited experience than on the experience of others in making judgments.Another automobile analogy for you: Say I buy a Toyota, and the car is nothing but trouble for me. Because of this personal experience, I determine to believe that Toyotas are unreliable, and vow never to buy one again - regardless of the fact that almost every report on automobiles ranks Toyotas as among the most dependable vehicles on the market. My belief that Toyotas are unreliable is incorrect, in the face of this wide research, yet I cling to it, because it is the product of my own anecdotal experience.Another spin on it: people tend to believe that events are completely explainable using only the knowledge that they personally have at hand, and will generally attempt to construct explanations which satisfy them personally, regardless of how ridiculously incorrect those explanations are to people who have more expertise on the matter.
dankplacesJul 12, 2007
@dubyadubya3Don't hold back, tell us what you REALLY think!