3 ms·

Ironically, all the posts calling confirmation bias are, themselves, probably the result of confirmation bias.

by ysavir 10y ago

torgoguys 10y ago
>Ironically, all the posts calling confirmation bias are, themselves, probably the result of confirmation bias. Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? I really want to know your thinking on that. I try to actively attack such biases as best I can, but as I even mention in that comment, I understand that they affect us all. I'm just not seeing it here, though, so please tell me what you think I'm overlooking.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  He's claiming a common lag reaction exists, that does exist. For example, the lectins in oatmeal are known to cause immune reactions with as much as a 3-day lag (common for our immune reactions in general, of course) if the oatmeal is not cooked for long enough. When did you last get a flu only an hour after exposure to a virus? Lag is common (not uniform) in our immune system reactions, which encompass a lot more than IgE reactions.
  - torgoguys 10y ago
    Ok, but your reply to my question might want to address the question: >Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? Did you read the comment that that question was referring to? I never attack any notion of lag in a complex system being real possibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from or why lag excludes the possibility of confirmation bias. (And only loosely related, you might want to rethink using the example of abscense of influenza symptoms immediately after exposure to the virus as being in any way similar. You seem to be implying something I don't think you mean to).
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      Confirmation bias because we know most about IgE reactions, so tend to expect all other evidence to conform to that form of reaction - but reality is much more complex. Temporal (lag) characteristics fall under that. There's no requirement of prior similar errors with confirmation bias - the bias exists as an expectation and if fulfilled either by ignoring, downplaying or discarding other evidence. The particular bias, that IgE reactions exhaust the category of genuine allergy reactions is very strong - some allergists who don't read much still have it! It's certainly confirmation bias, together with recency. But we know that's false now, it's recent but well established medicine. We know mast cells do a lot more, now. MCAS = Mast Cell Activation Syndrome MCAD (Mast Cell Activation Disorder) = MCAS or mastocytosis Great links here: http://strengthflexibilityhealtheds.com/2016/02/04/diagnosing-mast-cell-activation-syndrome-mcas-update-and-diagnosis-confirmation/ http://strengthflexibilityhealtheds.com/2016/02/04/diagnosin... http://www.mastattack.org/2014/10/mcad-general-information-public/ http://www.mastattack.org/2014/10/mcad-general-information-p... http://evilmastcells.com/ http://evilmastcells.com/ http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)02927-3/fulltext http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)02927-3/full... Dr. Anne Maitland’s presentation on Allergies & Mast Cell Activation Syndrome in EDS Patients. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktFdr-9rpIM&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktFdr-9rpIM&feature=youtu.be https://mastcellblog.wordpress.com/mastcellguide/ https://mastcellblog.wordpress.com/mastcellguide/
      - torgoguys 10y ago
        You're back to trying to justify the plausibility of the parent being true and not answering the question, at least in a coherent way. Perhaps that's my fault in that it may be unclear which comment the question was referring to since this thread has gotten much longer. Here's the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901281 And here's the question: >Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? Merely alerting someone that based on the language they used in their comment that there may be confirmation bias at play does not represent confirmation bias on my part. That's what question you were theoretically answering... You could swap some words in the parent comment about the specific situation for some other completely ordinary and uncontroversial possibility (nothing to do with gluten or even health) and the concern still stands based on how the situation is being investigated. (See my other post about "remembering hits" and "forgetting misses" for the primary flaw expressed in the way he's going about investigating it).
- ysavir 10y ago
  I meant that in the sense that posts claiming the parent was showing confirmation bias were in themselves likely trying to fault the parent's experiments in a way that reaffirmed their own existing beliefs. I'm not saying that they were wrong in pointing out confirmation bias, but that they aren't coming from a much more objective perspective themselves.
  - torgoguys 10y ago
    Gotcha. I appreciate the reply. I understand what you were thinking now, but I reject that assertion, at least for my comment. In it, I explicitly accept the possibility that he's right, after warning him that based (only) on the text of his comment, he might not have sufficiently guarded himself against a confirmation bias. I replied because the way he described it is classic of a "remember this hits, forget the misses" cognitive problem. There's no prospective testing described (other than the initial elimination of gluten from her diet). Their confidence seems to mostly rest on post-hoc examinations of diet once something is noticed (so you're missing most of the data and potentially most of the misses) and even gives himself an out if they do an examination and it does miss (the reference to needing a "deep enough" investigation, implying that he open to chalking up a miss as that this time they just didn't look deep enough).

Ironically, all the posts calling confirmation bias are, themselves, probably the result of confirmation bias.

by ysavir 10y ago

Ironically, all the posts calling confirmation bias are, themselves, probably the result of confirmation bias.

>Ironically, all the posts calling confirmation bias are, themselves, probably the result of confirmation bias. Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? I really want to know your thinking on that. I try to actively attack such biases as best I can, but as I even mention in that comment, I understand that they affect us all. I'm just not seeing it here, though, so please tell me what you think I'm overlooking.

Nomentatus 10y ago
He's claiming a common lag reaction exists, that does exist. For example, the lectins in oatmeal are known to cause immune reactions with as much as a 3-day lag (common for our immune reactions in general, of course) if the oatmeal is not cooked for long enough. When did you last get a flu only an hour after exposure to a virus? Lag is common (not uniform) in our immune system reactions, which encompass a lot more than IgE reactions.
- torgoguys 10y ago
  Ok, but your reply to my question might want to address the question: >Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? Did you read the comment that that question was referring to? I never attack any notion of lag in a complex system being real possibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from or why lag excludes the possibility of confirmation bias. (And only loosely related, you might want to rethink using the example of abscense of influenza symptoms immediately after exposure to the virus as being in any way similar. You seem to be implying something I don't think you mean to).
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Confirmation bias because we know most about IgE reactions, so tend to expect all other evidence to conform to that form of reaction - but reality is much more complex. Temporal (lag) characteristics fall under that. There's no requirement of prior similar errors with confirmation bias - the bias exists as an expectation and if fulfilled either by ignoring, downplaying or discarding other evidence. The particular bias, that IgE reactions exhaust the category of genuine allergy reactions is very strong - some allergists who don't read much still have it! It's certainly confirmation bias, together with recency. But we know that's false now, it's recent but well established medicine. We know mast cells do a lot more, now. MCAS = Mast Cell Activation Syndrome MCAD (Mast Cell Activation Disorder) = MCAS or mastocytosis Great links here: http://strengthflexibilityhealtheds.com/2016/02/04/diagnosing-mast-cell-activation-syndrome-mcas-update-and-diagnosis-confirmation/ http://strengthflexibilityhealtheds.com/2016/02/04/diagnosin... http://www.mastattack.org/2014/10/mcad-general-information-public/ http://www.mastattack.org/2014/10/mcad-general-information-p... http://evilmastcells.com/ http://evilmastcells.com/ http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)02927-3/fulltext http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(14)02927-3/full... Dr. Anne Maitland’s presentation on Allergies & Mast Cell Activation Syndrome in EDS Patients. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktFdr-9rpIM&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktFdr-9rpIM&feature=youtu.be https://mastcellblog.wordpress.com/mastcellguide/ https://mastcellblog.wordpress.com/mastcellguide/
    - torgoguys 10y ago
      You're back to trying to justify the plausibility of the parent being true and not answering the question, at least in a coherent way. Perhaps that's my fault in that it may be unclear which comment the question was referring to since this thread has gotten much longer. Here's the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901281 And here's the question: >Have a look at my comment (the first reply flagging this as possibly the result of confirmation bias). In what what does it sound to you like it could be the result of confirmation bias? Merely alerting someone that based on the language they used in their comment that there may be confirmation bias at play does not represent confirmation bias on my part. That's what question you were theoretically answering... You could swap some words in the parent comment about the specific situation for some other completely ordinary and uncontroversial possibility (nothing to do with gluten or even health) and the concern still stands based on how the situation is being investigated. (See my other post about "remembering hits" and "forgetting misses" for the primary flaw expressed in the way he's going about investigating it).
ysavir 10y ago
I meant that in the sense that posts claiming the parent was showing confirmation bias were in themselves likely trying to fault the parent's experiments in a way that reaffirmed their own existing beliefs. I'm not saying that they were wrong in pointing out confirmation bias, but that they aren't coming from a much more objective perspective themselves.
- torgoguys 10y ago
  Gotcha. I appreciate the reply. I understand what you were thinking now, but I reject that assertion, at least for my comment. In it, I explicitly accept the possibility that he's right, after warning him that based (only) on the text of his comment, he might not have sufficiently guarded himself against a confirmation bias. I replied because the way he described it is classic of a "remember this hits, forget the misses" cognitive problem. There's no prospective testing described (other than the initial elimination of gluten from her diet). Their confidence seems to mostly rest on post-hoc examinations of diet once something is noticed (so you're missing most of the data and potentially most of the misses) and even gives himself an out if they do an examination and it does miss (the reference to needing a "deep enough" investigation, implying that he open to chalking up a miss as that this time they just didn't look deep enough).