How do you tell the difference between making use of what you have, and confirmation bias?

[Aerindel]

I see this all the time:


People who live in cities think its better to be in a group.

People with short range rifles don't think long range rifles will be needed....people with long range rifles think they are the best way to win a fight.

People don't have a BIL, think no house is defensible. People with a BIL, think all the BOL people are going to die on the road.

People in open land think that will protect them, people in the woods think the concealment will protect them...

People without a 4wd vehicle think 2WD is better, people with 4WD think 2WD is useless....

I see it everyday, and am 'guilty' of it myself.

The question is, how do you tell the difference between making smart use of the situation you are in, with letting the situation you are in, determine your views on the situation you SHOULD be in?

Is it even possible? or desirable? Are we all just victims of circumstance or past decisions?

 

[Hardcalibres]

There is a saying in Africa that translates from Swahili to:

The more I see, the more I know.

The more I know, the better I see.

Confirmation bias seems to flourish when people are filling in the (bigger) gaps between their experiences.......with their imaginations......

What they can imagine is often restricted by Normalcy Bias and wishful thinking.

 

[LadyLocust]

As I was reading your post, I thought narrow minded or open minded.
Have you used both a BIL and a BOL so you can make an educated decision?
Have you used a short range and a long range r!fle then making a decision based on experience?
If you’ve no experience with an alternate item or plan, then you can’t make an unbiased decision. In that situation the decision is really to go with what you know or take a chance with an unknown. That can happen on varying levels almost daily in life. Then you are sorta right there with the saying in Hardcaliber’s post.

 

[montanabill]

Your location, skills, and assets bear heavily on what you see as your reality..
I study history and first person accounts of their own actions and reactions to bad situations to help me understand my own situation..
What went on in Bosnia...
What is going on in south africa....
What is going on in parts of Mexico....

I think the clock is running out on deciding to change your whole situation and certainly time is running out on trying to convince someone else to modify their situation,
Time to play the hand you are delt..

 

[Sourdough]

It is the "TRANSITION" that kills.



"FULLY" comprehending that is a "HUGE" key to your survival.

Even better if you "LIVE" it.

 

[Haertig]

People with short range rifles don't think long range rifles will be needed....people with long range rifles think they are the best way to win a fight. ...

I don't think this is "confirmation bias". Very few people just stumble through a gun store and buy the first rifle they knock over. They buy the rifle they do because they had some reason to choose that rifle.

It is not unusual, and is not "confirmation bias", to believe that the rifle you just bought was your best choice. After all, you specifically chose that rifle for the job you needed it for, while taking in account your personal situation.

All the other examples presented in the opening post are similar. OF COURSE someone who chose item #1 over item #2 is going to believe that item #1 is better for their need. That's why they chose it in the first place.

The only people who would denigrate this completely normal thought process by calling it "confirmation bias" are the ones that want to believe they are better at choosing what you need than you are.

People may make a choice and then find out later that it was the wrong choice. That happens all the time. Hopefully they learn from the mistake - a mistake that EVERYONE makes many times in their life. But this is not "confirmation bias". "Confirmation bias" is the term that prima-donnas use to put down choices made by plebes. When I see someone use it in a derogatory way, I pretty much ignore anything more they say. FWIW, I do not think it was used in a derogatory way in the opening post of this thread. That was a thought provoking post. But I would still rather see the stupid term go the way of the dodo bird. 95% of the time it is used by self-styled experts to put others down.

 

[Haertig]

Have you used a short range and a long range r!fle then making a decision based on experience?
If you’ve no experience with an alternate item or plan, then you can’t make an unbiased decision.

I'm thinking if you know the area around where you live is limited to 50 to 100 yards of sight, you can safely choose a short range rifle without having any experience with a long range rifle. That's not a biased decision, that's common sense.

 

[Hardcalibres]

I don't think this is "confirmation bias". Very few people just stumble through a gun store and buy the first rifle they knock over. They buy the rifle they do because they had some reason to choose that rifle.

It is not unusual, and is not "confirmation bias", to believe that the rifle you just bought was your best choice. After all, you specifically chose that rifle for the job you needed it for, while taking in account your personal situation.

All the other examples presented in the opening post are similar. OF COURSE someone who chose item #1 over item #2 is going to believe that item #1 is better for their need. That's why they chose it in the first place.

The only people who would denigrate this completely normal thought process by calling it "confirmation bias" are the ones that want to believe they are better at choosing what you need than you are.

People may make a choice and then find out later that it was the wrong choice. That happens all the time. Hopefully they learn from the mistake - a mistake that EVERYONE makes many times in their life. But this is not "confirmation bias". "Confirmation bias" is the term that prima-donnas use to put down choices made by plebes. When I see someone use it in a derogatory way, I pretty much ignore anything more they say. FWIW, I do not think it was used in a derogatory way in the opening post of this thread. That was a thought provoking post. But I would still rather see the stupid term go the way of the dodo bird. 95% of the time it is used by self-styled experts to put others down.

So would you say that using the term confirmation bias (which is an impersonal pronoun) is more insulting than calling people doomsayers (which is personal) .........or prima-donnas.....or self-styled experts?

The latter are all terms you have used in your posts in the last 24 hours.

.....pot.....meet kettle.

 

[Canon29]

Confirmation bias is when you only consider information that confirms what you already think. You can tell immediately when people unreasonably defend positions that have serious flaws in their premises and won't even discuss the potential for flaws or rather are trying to confirm their own beliefs by defeating other's without considering them. That's not to say that everyone has to have the same belief, they just need to recognize why their beliefs are different and how those differences are accounted for in strengths and weaknesses. All beliefs/plans have both.

I.e. short range rifles suffer in the long range game, rifles optimized for long range suffer in the short range game- Or, trees can conceal you but also your enemies, open land will help you to notice your enemies, but also reveals yourself. Such ought to effect rifle choice etc. When you see inconsistency between the context and the plan and someone vehemently defending that flawed premise you know somethings up.

When someone says "anyone who does this" is dead and they speak in absolutes without disclaimer to the specifics of the context you almost immediately know it's someone trying to justify a lack of capability or are just jockeying for clout or something.

Basically when people exclude the success or viability of another without considering or even asking for that persons context it's a big tell that it's confirmation bias rather than appropriate use and thus enhancement of what they have chosen.

To give an example. I'm a bug out guy- in the woods with (at first) a close range rifle. It makes sense for me given how I choose to live, what I've been convinced to believe, and how I've invested and enhanced my preparedness towards those goals. Those contexts drive that position.

What I DONT do is prescribe my methods to others and/or portray it as the only viable method, discredit the very real potential issues/challenges with my choices, or neglect to mention the context which drives my decisions and superimpose that context on others.

What I DO is try to help others by making connections between methods and offering/taking advice, take other peoples beliefs very seriously and consider them soberly, and do my part to make sure context is applied appropriately so we have some baseline as to why an issue is or isn't actually an issue for that person/group individually.

Can I tell you why I think my plans are good? Yup. But I can also tell you the problems with them and my limitations.

thus, the biggest indication for confirmation bias and thus not just making best use of their circumstances is when someone neglects to admit real risk/fallibility and instead attacks the opposing idea or moves to discredit the things that highlight their risk.

 

[OldSchool]

"objectivity" could be a good catch phrase for this thread. I mean if a person can look at alternative ways of doing things, being opposed to steadfast rules of the person.... a learning experience might happen, and maybe a person could refine their ways.

 

[OldSchool]

Confirmation bias is when you only consider information that confirms what you already think. You can tell immediately when people unreasonably defend positions that have serious flaws in their premises and won't even discuss the potential for flaws or rather are trying to confirm their own beliefs by defeating others without considering them. That's not to say that everyone has to have the same belief, they just need to recognize why their beliefs are different and how those differences are accounted for in strengths and weaknesses. All beliefs/plans have both.

I.e. short range rifles suffer in the long range game, rifles optimized for long range suffer in the short range game- Or, trees can conceal you but also your enemies, open land will help you to notice your enemies, but also yourself. Such ought to effect rifle choice etc. When you see inconsistency between the context and the plan and someone vehemently defending that flawed premise you know somethings up.

When someone says "anyone who does this" is dead and they speak in absolutes without disclaimer to the specifics of the context you almost immediately know it's someone trying to justify a lack of capability or are just jockeying for clout or something.

Basically when people exclude the success or viability of another without considering or even asking for that persons context it's a big tell that it's confirmation bias rather than appropriate use and thus enhancement of what they have chosen.

To give an example. I'm a bug out guy- in the woods with (at first) a close range rifle. It makes sense for me given how I choose to live, what I've been convinced to believe, and how I've invested and enhanced my preparedness towards those goals. Those contexts drive that position.

What I DONT do is prescribe my methods to others and/or portray it as the only viable method, discredit the very real potential issues/challenges with my choices, or neglect to mention the context which drives my decisions and superimpose that context on others.

What I DO is try to help others by making connections between methods and offering/taking advice, take other peoples beliefs very seriously and consider them soberly, and do my part to make sure context is applied appropriately so we have some baseline as to why an issue is or isn't actually an issue for that person/group individually.

Can I tell you why I think my plans are good? Yup. But I can also tell you the problems with them and my limitations.

thus, the biggest indication for confirmation bias and thus not just making best use of their circumstances is when someone neglects to admit real risk/fallibility and instead attacks the opposing idea or moves to discredit the things that highlight their risk.

At this early morning hour.... your post should have stood, for the enlightenment of others. I didn't mean to step on you..... it's just the way it happened.

 

[Canon29]

At this early morning hour.... your post should have stood, for the enlightenment of others. I didn't mean to step on you..... it's just the way it happened.

No apology needed whatsoever, it all comes with the territory of this format. I appreciate the compliment and also your post.

 

[Haertig]

The latter are all terms you have used in your posts in the last 24 hours.

More like the last 24 minutes actually.

But touché on your point!

 

[Hardcalibres]

More like the last 24 minutes actually.

I had to cast the net that wide to include your use of the term doomsayers......and yes the others were much more recent.

 

[Hardcalibres]

I'm thinking if you know the area around where you live is limited to 50 to 100 yards of sight, you can safely choose a short range rifle without having any experience with a long range rifle. That's not a biased decision, that's common sense.

The exception I often see is that......even in the areas that you cant see more than 100 yards through the woods, there are other scenarios where you might have to shoot further than that in the abnormal conditions of a very severe crisis.

For example (and hypothetically), think of this:

1. The rule of law has failed.....and it wont be coming back
2. Raiders attack your community and some good folks are killed.....including women and children
3. Your community bands together and votes to put in roadblocks to keep raiders out
4. A roster of personnel is drawn up to man the roadblocks....and it is preferred that you all bring your own rifle (that you are familiar with)
5. To maximise tactical advantage, the road blocks are each placed up at the high end of a long straight....say 500 yards long
6. Raiders ignore warnings and try to bust through your roadblock and are repelled
7. Next they pull back to the other end of the 500 yards straight and start firing upon the roadblock
8. What good is your 100 yard rifle now?
9. If they pick you all off from the roadblock, they will get in and your community will be killed

Now I am guessing that you will read the above scenario and say "That is never going to happen".....but you should understand that has happened to many people around the world, it is happening to many people around the world and (while unlikely) there is no fundamental reason that cant happen where you live.

Many in the prepping world would rather be prepared for such a very severe crisis.

 

[OldSchool]

Somewhere here, in another recent thread apparently..... it was said in the OP that it's time to take the hand we've been dealt and roll with it. Paraphrasing and as memory servers. But: That doesn't mean our ways can't be refined.

Refining my ways and learning.... does life get any better?