History Main / ConfirmationBias

** The T-Mobile parody commercials weren't much better...though T-Mobile was lampooning Apple [=iPhone=], which was at the time an AT&T exclusive.

* On that note, [=~C. S. Lewis~=]' ''{{The Chronicles of Narnia}}'' series and PhilipPullman's ''HisDarkMaterials'' series, which are {{author tract}}s for Christianity and nontheism, respectively. Notable in that while Lewis didn't originally ''intend'' his work to turn into one, while Pullman ''very much'' intentionally wrote his series with promoting nontheism in mind (as well as making an anti-religious rebuttal to Lewis). As a result, ''HisDarkMaterials'' is a ''lot'' more frank about its message.

* The word "clapter" was coined to describe the latter effect in TV - when an audience applauds a joke more than actually laughing at it. It's an accusation often levelled at the more recent years of ''TheDailyShow''. (Its synonym "clappy humor" has an entry in the [[http://www.urbandictionary.com Urban Dictionary]].

* [[DeadHorseGenre Certain genres of music]] may fall into this trope, particularly those that began as underground movements and became mainstream later on; artists and songs would be judged primarily on their subject matter, perceived attitude or whether or not a message is present, rather than being enjoyed/loathed for the music itself. Hip hop music, due to its lyric-heavy, melody-sparse nature, might be the most prominent example. Particularly the artists of the PoliticalRap sub genre. The main polarizers being PublicEnemy, TheCoup, and the extremely controversial rappers Paris, and Immortal Technique. And to a lesser extent, Ice Cube, IceT, and TupacShakur.

** ''The Bad Reporter'' wasn't originally this--a cartoon from the early 2000s mocked the "comic-book-ization" of the media and argued that both sides of the political aisle were engaging in {{demonization}}, without particularly insulting the followers of either side so much as their leaders. A cartoon a few years later parodied ''IAmSam'' with undecided voters in place of the mentally retarded. Not trying to win any converts now, are we, Mr. Asmussen?

* Most political radio shows - of both stripes - tend to be this by default. NealBoortz does his best to encourage dissenting opinions, for certain values of "encourage" and "dissenting" and "his best", because (as he said in his book ''Somebody's Gotta Say It'') shows where everybody agrees with the host tend to be extremely boring and sycophantic.

* Most political radio shows - of both stripes - tend to be this by default. NealBoortz does his best to encourage dissenting opinions because (as he said in his book ''Somebody's Gotta Say It'') shows where everybody agrees with the host tend to be extremely boring and sycophantic.

It is worth noting that even if a work may be not be aimed at converting ideological outsiders, [[WeAREStrugglingTogether that doesn't necessarily mean it's not designed to convert people]]. Also, this does not mean that everyone with a given viewpoint will like a work just because it follows that same view. Some may criticize it for not doing a good enough job persuading those who are undecided or who have the opposite view.

Contrast [=~Don't Shoot The Message~=], which is about disliking a work because of its style but ''not'' its message.

It is worth noting that even if a work may be not be aimed at converting ideological outsiders, [[WeAREStrugglingTogether that doesn't necessarily mean it's not designed to convert people]]. Also, this does not mean that everyone with a given slant will like a work just because it follows the same distinct slant. Some may criticize it for not doing a good enough job persuading those who are undecided or who have the opposite view.

Keep in mind, however, that many people neither agree or disagree with a message before presented with an argument that they find convincing. The purpose of many of the examples of this trope can legitimately be said in at least a small part to convince the undecided, rather than change someone's mind. Even so, the ConfirmationBias effect is noticeable.

Confirmation Bias is the [[[[LogicalFallacies fallacy]] of lending extra weight to information and arguments that confirm your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disputes them.

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of lending extra weight to information and arguments that confirm your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disputes them. It's similar to cherry-picking, though the two are somewhat different: cherry picking is deliberately seeking data that confirms your argument and ignoring any conflicting data, while confirmation bias typically involves you (often unconsciously) believing that data that supports your argument is stronger or more convincing that it objectively is, and vice versa.

# Interpreting ambigious information with a focus on how it favors one's own beliefs.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate ideas based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead someone down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to possess a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

People also have an easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (see AppealToIgnorance), making "disproving" an assumption very difficult. As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate, not because of willful stubborness but because people are invested in their own perspectives and tend to treat their own ideas with greater weight than opposing viewpoints.

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of lending extra weight to information and arguments that confirm your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disproves them. It's similar to cherry-picking, though the two are somewhat different: cherry picking is deliberately seeking data that confirms your argument and ignoring any conflicting data, while confirmation bias typically involves you (often unconsciously) believing that data that supports your argument is stronger or more convincing that it objectively is, and vice versa.

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of lending extra weight to information or arguments that confirms your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disproves them. It's similar to cherry-picking, though the two are somewhat different: cherry picking is deliberately seeking data that confirms your argument and ignoring any conflicting data, while confirmation bias typically involves you (often unconsciously) believing that data that supports your argument is stronger or more convincing that it objectively is, and vice versa.

People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (see AppealToIgnorance), making "disproving" an assumption very difficult. As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate, not because of willful stubborness but because people are invested in their own perspectives and tend to treat their own ideas with greater weight than opposing viewpoints.

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of lending extra weight to information or arguments that confirms your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disproves them. Similar to cherry-picking, though the two are somewhat different. Cherry picking is deliberately seeking data that confirms your argument and ignoring any conflicting data, while confirmation bias typically involves you (often unconsciously) believing that data that supports your argument is stronger or more convincing that it objectively is, and vice versa.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate ideas based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead someone down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views generally possess a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate ideas based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead someone down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views possess a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate ideas based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead someone down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to have a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate ideas based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead people down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to have a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (see AppealToIgnorance), making "disproving" an assumption very difficult. As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate, not because of willful stubborness but because people are invested in their own perspectives and tend to treat their own ideas with greater weight than alternate viewpoints.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate theories based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead people down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to have a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of effort.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate theories based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead people down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to have a momentum that resists being changed without a great deal of mental effort.

People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (see AppealToIgnorance), making "disproving" an assumption very difficult. As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate, not because of willful stubborness but because people are mentally invested in their own perspectives and tend to treat their own ideas with greater weight than alternate viewpoints.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate theories based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead people down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. People's world views tend to have a momentum that naturally resists being changed without a great deal of mental effort.

People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (see AppealToIgnorance), making "disproving" an assumption very difficult. As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate, not because of willful stubborness but because people are psychologically invested in their own perspectives and tend to treat their own ideas with greater weight than opposing or alternate viewpoints.

Confirmation bias results from the innate tendency to assume that what one already knows is correct, and so to build more and more elaborate theories based on those first assumptions, with each new element evaluated once and then taken for granted. This can lead people down an ever-deepening blind alley if an early assumption turns out to have been wrong, and it's often difficult for people, even professionals like doctors and scientists, to objectively weigh new evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially if it's one that carries emotional weight and would require abandoning much of what they'd previously assumed to be true. One's own view of the world, in short, tends to have its own momentum that naturally resists being changed without a great deal of mental effort.

# Rationalizing contradictory evidence [[IRejectYourReality in a way that still maintains one's own beliefs]].

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of lending extra weight to information or arguments that confirms your own beliefs while disregarding or downplaying evidence that disproves them. Similar to cherry-picking, though the two are slightly different. Cherry picking is deliberately seeking data that confirms your argument and ignoring any conflicting data, while confirmation bias typically involves you (often unconsciously) believing that data that supports your argument is stronger or more convincing that it objectively is, and vice versa.

# Seeking evidence for a belief you already hold, or eagerly accepting it, while avoiding, ignoring, or disregarding contradictory evidence.
# Interpreting information so that it supports your beliefs when it truly contradicts it.
# Having your beliefs refuted only to rationalize the evidence so that it "supports" your beliefs -- that is, [[IRejectYourReality rejecting reality]] to substitute your own.

While [[CrowningMomentOfHeartwarming not impossible]], it is emotionally hard for some people to seek evidence that contradicts their own ideas or beliefs, especially when it is an idea or belief that they have held for a long time, or which they feel passionate about. People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (though see AppealToIgnorance). As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate because people simply refuse to acknowledge opposing or alternative viewpoints.

This will be seen frequently in web forums: both sides will often argue for their position while dismissing opposing positions as being "biased." Sometimes, both sides ''are'' biased in this way, deliberately cherry-picking data to support their side of the case, but usually [[InvokedTrope the claim that an opponent is biased]] is a distraction, and as such may occur in a ChewbaccaDefense. It is also notable that calling an opponent biased is not necessarily a point against them - if most or all of the evidence is leaning towards a particular conclusion, then obviously an impartial judge's view will be "biased" in that direction. "Being biased" is not a synonym for "being wrong".

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of only seeking information that confirms your own beliefs while disregarding evidence that disproves them.

# Having your beliefs refuted only to rationalize the evidence so that it "supports" your beliefs -- that is, rejecting reality to substitute your own.

While not impossible, it is emotionally hard for some people to seek evidence that contradicts their own beliefs, especially when it is a belief that they have held for a long time, or which they feel passionate about. People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief (though see ArgumentFromIgnorance). As a result, confirmation bias is ubiquitous and can often impede a debate because people simply refuse to acknowledge opposing or alternative viewpoints.

This will be seen frequently in web forums: both sides will often argue for their position while dismissing opposing positions as being "biased." Sometimes, both sides ''are'' biased in this way, deliberately cherry-picking data to support their side of the case, but usually [[InvokedTrope the claim that an opponent is biased]] is a distraction, and as such may occur in a ChewbaccaDefense. It is also notable that calling an opponent biased is not necessarily a point against them - if most or all of the evidence is leaning towards a particular conclusion, then obviously an impartial judge's view will be "biased" in that direction. "Being biased" is not a synonym for "being wrong".

It goes against human nature to seek evidence that contradicts their beliefs. People also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief. Thus, confirmation bias is unavoidable.

This will be seen frequently in web forums. Both sides will often argue for their position while dismissing opposing positions as being "biased." Sometimes, both sides are right.

# Having your beliefs completely refuted only to just rationalize the evidence so that it "supports" your beliefs -- that is, rejecting reality to substitute your own.

Confirmation Bias is the fallacy of only seeking information that confirms your own beliefs while disregarding evidence that disproves them. This comes in several forms. The first form is readily treating or seeking evidence for a belief you already hold while avoiding, ignoring, or disregarding contradictory evidence. The second more extreme form involves interpreting information in a way that it supports your beliefs even though the evidence actually contradicts it. The third and worst form is having your beliefs completely refuted only to just rationalize the evidence so that it really "supports" your beliefs. Confirmation Bias is one of the worst fallacies because it goes against human nature to seek evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Not only that but people also have a easier time seeing how evidence proves a belief than how it disproves a belief making confirmation bias unavoidable.

!!! Examples:
* This will be seen frequently in web forums this tends to be common both sides will often argue for their position while dismissing opposing positions as being "biased"