Twelve cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational
Not a complete list, obviously. There are literally hundreds of cognitive biases, but these twelve are among the more common ones.
There's a more extensive list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bia...
There's a more extensive list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bia...
"It's why we only visit websites that express our political opinions, and why we mostly hang around people who hold similar views and tastes."
It is a conscious decision that I much prefer dealing with Objectivists or at least others who share the idea of the free trading of value for value rather than trying to explain to a socialist that no, he does not have an intrinsic claim on what I produce.
Nor do I frequent liberal sites in the hope that I will someday understand and adopt their redistribution philosophy. I have considered it, rejected it and the ideas hold no value for me.
These biases ARE rational and justified by my beliefs.
Most here on this site do not buy group think or the "wanting to be with the smart people that have degrees from prestigious colleges and must know better" sense of belonging that most libbys have. Independent thought is against the law. I appreciate the thoughts here, even when we disagree it is much more agreeable.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
Moreover, the sociology undergraduate curriculum includes a class in research methods. Seldom does a physical science degree offer that; and when it does, the analogous class is only about the arithmetic of statistics.
I like my toys.
In some areas of science, these biases can be very powerful. Does anyone remember the "black light" theory? For years people believed something called "black light" existed until finally the original "observer" admitted his photographic plates had a false-image problem all along.
Deeper still, the theory of Cognitive Dissonance says that faced with an unchangeable fact, you will alter your conclusion. What could be more rational? But understand this. You buy a car and find out that it is not comfortable on long road trips. You then say, "I don't take many long road trips." You reduced your cognitive dissonance by changing your opinion in the face of immutable facts.
In national politics, this leads to liberals who want to help "everyone" deciding to immolate the "rich" (i.e., the middle class) to benefit the "poor" (i.e., those who do not work), thus denying their premise. Among those who claim to advocate liberty, you find people who must condemn every action (and every word) of the President of the United States. "I hate Obama. Obama said this. Therefore I disagree."
Personally, I believe that Confirmation Bias and the Attribution Fallacy explain much.
You, in particular, consistently defend your husband's practice of patent law by arguing in favor of present patent law as the best instantiation of intellectual property rights. You are subjective and invested.
Sunstein and universal healthcare - woven into the explanations. Is the writer showing his own bias or is he trying to induce us to be biased in his direction?
From the article...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" — an adage that fuels our conservative tendencies. And in fact, some commentators say this is why the U.S. hasn't been able to enact universal health care, despite the fact that most individuals support the idea of reform." First, most individuals support getting "free" healthcare paid for by others. Sure, people generically support some nimbus idea of "reform". This was not the change we were hoping for...
Second, aversion to change comes from exactly this type of bad policy change, for the worse.
Conservative values are mostly based on time tested history of policy versus human behavior. Not perfect but much more reliable than the immature rantings of college aged sculls full of mush.