4,622
edits
Social Studies skills: Difference between revisions
m
→Confirmation bias
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1,154: | Line 1,154: | ||
* origins of the idea of confirmation bias | * origins of the idea of confirmation bias | ||
** Aesop's fable: Fox and the Grapes, which is where we get the expression, "sour grapes" ("oh well, those grapes are probably sour") | ** Aesop's fable: Fox and the Grapes, which is where we get the expression, "sour grapes" ("oh well, those grapes are probably sour") | ||
*David Hume and confirmaton bias | |||
* David Hume | |||
** 18th century Scottish philosopher who argued that knowledge is derived from experience (called "empiricism") | ** 18th century Scottish philosopher who argued that knowledge is derived from experience (called "empiricism") | ||
** however, Hume warned against reason alone as the basis for knowledge, as one can "reason" just about anything | ** however, Hume warned against reason alone as the basis for knowledge, as one can "reason" just about anything | ||
| Line 1,166: | Line 1,160: | ||
** Hume warned against jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge | ** Hume warned against jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge | ||
*** i.e. drawing conclusions based on our own confirmation bias | *** i.e. drawing conclusions based on our own confirmation bias | ||
* may also be called "motivated reasoning" | |||
** i.e. drawing conclusions ("reasoning") based upon bias or reason for ("motives") | |||
* see: | |||
** [http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/method/confirmation_bias.html Confirmation Bias & Wason (1960) 2-4-6 Task (devpsy.org)] | |||
** [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201905/the-curious-case-of-confirmation-bias The Curious Case of Confirmation Bias | Psychology Today] | |||
==== historical examples of confirmation bias ==== | |||
*in 1938, British Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Germany after signing the Munich Agreement, under which Hitler agreed not to many further claims on Czechsolvakian territory (after siezing the Sudetenland), and announced that the agreement would bring "peace for our time." | |||
**within six months Germany had annexed more of Czechoslavia and would soon after invade Poland. | |||
**Chamberlain and his allied nations so wanted Hitler not to be a problem that they accepted anything he proposed thinking that appeasing him would stop his agression. | |||
*the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 were driven by confirmation bias that considered evidence gave proof of witchcraft, and even otherwise harmless things, like a broken fence, served as proof of it. | |||
**Worse, authorities accepted without question ridiculous claims such as that a witch supposedly made cows jump | |||
*The New Testament tells of various miracles performed by Jesus, some of which occur on the sabbath, which is the Hebrew "day of rest" (no work is allowed) | |||
**when some of the Jewish leaders, "Pharisees," witness a miracle, instead of responding in awe of it (such as healing a cripple or giving sight to a blind man), they become upset that Jesus performed the miracle on the sabbath | |||
***basically, saying, "Yeah, whatever, you healed a dude, but you can't do that on a Saturday!" | |||
**the bias of the Pharisees was so strong that they ignored the miracle and instead accused Jesus of breaking the law by "working" on the sabbath | |||
=== Correlation is not causation === | === Correlation is not causation === | ||
* a cause and effect fallacy that mistakes "correlation" for cause | * a cause and effect fallacy that mistakes "correlation" for cause | ||
| Line 1,842: | Line 1,852: | ||
== Other theories & conceptual tools == | == Other theories & conceptual tools == | ||
=== Glasl's model of conflict escalation === | |||
[[File:Glasl's Model of Conflict Escalation.svg|thumb|Glasl's "Nine stages of conflict escalation"|385x385px]] | |||
* when analyzing conflict, diplomacy, events, etc. students may employ the conceptual framework of "conflict escalation" by Friedrich Glasl ([[wikipedia:Friedrich_Glasl's_model_of_conflict_escalation|here from wikipedia]]) | |||
* Glasl's model divides disagreement or conflict scenarios into "stages" based upon three core outcomes: | |||
** win-win | |||
*** both sides benefit | |||
** win-lose | |||
*** one side benefits, the other loses | |||
** lose-lose | |||
*** conflict w/ bad outcomes for one or both parties | |||
* conflicts escalate through and into: | |||
** tension and dispute | |||
** debate | |||
** communication loss | |||
** coalition building (seeking sympathy or help from others) | |||
** denunciation | |||
** loss of face (pride) | |||
** threats and feelings of threat | |||
** depersonalization (treating the other as not human) | |||
** attack, annihilation, defeat | |||
* deescalation includes: | |||
** mediation from third-party (intercession, intermediation) | |||
** process guidance | |||
** arbitration, legal actions | |||
** forcible intervention, especially from higher power | |||
* Glasl's model works at the individual (a family fight) or global level (international affairs) | |||
=== Graham's hierarchy of disagreement === | |||
[[File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg|thumb|Graham's hierarchy of disagreement]] | |||
* tech entrepreneur Paul Graham in 2008 proposed a model for levels (hierarchies) of disagreement | |||
* the top of the hierarchy is refutation of the "central point" | |||
** i.e., that the opposing idea is fundamentally "refuted" | |||
*** via logic, demonstration, evidence, etc. | |||
* the bottom of the hierarchy is "Name-calling", which leads to no resolution and further anger or dispute | |||
* key points in the negative side of the hierarchy are essentially [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]: | |||
** name-calling (ad hominem) and | |||
** criticism of tone or attitude rather than substance ("responding to tone") | |||
** contractions without evidence | |||
* on the constructive side are | |||
** strong argument via reason, logic, evidence | |||
** refutation: proof | |||
=== Overton Window === | === Overton Window === | ||
* Joseph Overton observed that along the spectrum of social or political thought, policy, or opinion | * [[File:Overton Window diagram.svg|thumb|An illustration of the Overton window, along with Treviño's degrees of acceptance]]Joseph Overton observed that along the spectrum of social or political thought, policy, or opinion | ||
** there exists a mainstream "middle" of consensus | ** there exists a mainstream "middle" of consensus | ||
*** that middle may have variances, but most people generally agree with it | *** that middle may have variances, but most people generally agree with it | ||
| Line 1,854: | Line 1,909: | ||
*** as its popularity grew, especially following Elvis Presley, rock music became popular music | *** as its popularity grew, especially following Elvis Presley, rock music became popular music | ||
**** and thus, entered the Overton Window | **** and thus, entered the Overton Window | ||
* in the Overton Window, "Policy" should reflect a consensus of points of view within the window, and will move according to changes within that window | |||
** so, while "Policy" may not always reflect the middle of the Window, it acts to reflect changes in the window. | |||
=== Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism" === | === Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism" === | ||