Psychology of Belief, Part 3: Confirmation Bias

[HybridD91]

Wait, I didn't even see the word even. I just said the numbers where increasing by 2. Gotta read that again :P.

[philopolymath]

Excellent confirmation that God concepts and belief dogmas are MOST vulnerable and ATTRACTIVE means of MASS manipulation...

BUT it has ZERO nO NADA relation to the FACT of Gods existence only MANS PERCEPTION.

Are you ADDING to this deception or helping to SHOW it's trap?

[neversurdender]

Tj showed that the banana isnt the athiests worst nightmare...

[Sloth7d]

@neversurdender He did? He seemed to like it, I guess, and not many of his fans really cared about his sex life.

[un2mensch]

For what it's worth, bananas peel much more freely from the tip, not the stem.

[dirtypimpbird]

Good video.. Everyday i say to myself "don't fool yourself, because you are the easiest person to fool." i think this quote is from an out of print book called The Art of Scientific Thinking. People are so unaware of how the confirmation bias impacts the decision they make in life...

[rictusgate]

I always find Mr.Raynards quip about the handy "pull tab" being so essential to showing that a designer cared enough to make the fruit easy to peel and eat so laughable - have you ever watched a monkey or other such beast eat a banana? They hold the banana "upside down" - with the "pull tab" held by a foot and the monkey then peels it from the "bottom". Try it, it's a much more efficient technique - and it took a monkey to show the human how to do it better, makes one wonder . . . ?

[Phainein]

@rictusgate See, I don't even bother to critique the banana; it is ONE FRUIT in a sea of other fruits/foods which are messy and hard to eat. Look at nuts, which are hard to eat the edible portion of without tools. Look at Tapioca; certain types are POISONOUS in the natural raw form. It only becomes edible after processing! There are too many exceptions.

[Forcefield23]

note to self: watch video before commenting.

[AntiCitizenX]

@Forcefield23

LOL... ;) 

[PachucoDesigns]

@AntiCitizenX This makes me wonder how many people held on to the idea of phlogiston and the presupposition of the elements even after we proved it wrong and began the expansion of the periodic table. Even though it took time, it was so done by the guidance of those experts who have tested and confirmed it. But it's still held as true by the masses based on these principles of belief. So what will come of it when we prove the nature of "god?" The power of suggestion is a troubling thing.

[Forcefield23]

this has probably been pointed out earlier in the comments, but aren't bananas artificially genetically engineered by humans?

[richwfd2002]

Ray's had a lot of practice with those bananas

[Hackney2000]

Thank you for your videos! You did a great job!

[1960pj]

The whole point about the banana is that it was genetically changed to its modern form by science. Hence, the picture showing how it originally looked before the genetic manipulation by science.

[justafrinian]

Intriguing video. Would be nice to get links to the study cited in the video. Only the spirit or many tests can confirm the truth. They work in unison.

[AntiCitizenX]

@justafrinian

It's called "Google," my friend. Try it out. Unfortunately, some of the studies are not freely available online. For those you might have to (*gasp*) go to a library yourself and dig them up. I live on a university campus, so I get much of this stuff instantly. However, most libraries can get the articles for you through interlibrary loan. It's still free, just not instant.

Finally, that "spirit" thing of yours... you'd better be skeptical of that too. See Part 6.

[PalulukanMakto]

@justafrinian A good place to look is PubMed.

[BigFatMan1951]

Ah yes! Good ol' Ray Comfort, The Banana Man! He should be in the nut house! Hell, why not? We already have Kent Hovind, another Funny-mentalist Christard doing time in prison for tax evasion and fraud, so we need to put another one in the loony bin! Jerry Falwell has bought the farms so he's six feet under taking a dirt nap! Now, where should we put Pat Robertson? I'm open for suggestions!

[cmpresents]

Yeah but can science figure out what love is. Why we laugh, why we cry, why 99% of all songs speak about the heart, why lying is a sin. Let me know when you find the answer.

[AntiCitizenX]

@cmpresents

I found those answers years ago. They are also entirely irrelevant to the content of this video.

[cmpresents]

@AntiCitizenX Yeah, what is it?

[RadicalDreamer2121]

@cmpresents Short answer? The human brain.

If you want the long one, I suggest taking up at least a couple of college biology courses. Personally, I'm trying to limit myself on spamming other people's videos.

[keggerous]

@cmpresents funny u bring that up cuz religion doesnt answer those questions either . . .

[LostManSays]

This video that was submitted on confirmation bias was profoundly an exercise in confirmation bias. An IQ test and an arbitrary question about fire men probably couldn't show us anything about confirmation bias. Am I right?

[AntiCitizenX]

@LostManSays

I'm not sure what you are asking.

[Ahabite]

The best part about how stupid and credulous Ray Comfort may be? He's rich!! Precisely because there are people who are even more self-defeatingly credulous and stupid. Yay!

[nomdeplume72]

I think the statement "Unless we are willing to be wrong, we can never know what is right" really cuts to the heart of the matter. Most people are too emotionally invested in their own opinions to consider the possibility. The idea of even considering it is such a threat to their ego, they shun it at all cost.

[jasonx1972]

@nomdeplume72

It is simply a natural process of avoiding cognitive dissonance. Human Beings have a hard wired need to believe in something; contradictory evidence can threaten that. It’s far more comfortable to believe in something unquestioned that to exist in a state of not being sure on anything,

Looking for disconfirming evidence is mentally intensive for all of us, and human beings find it every uncomfortable to have think long and hard about a subject; hence why we use heuristics.

[charkopolis]

@jasonx1972 "It’s far more comfortable to believe in something unquestioned that to exist in a state of not being sure on anything." check out part 8 of the series. I think you're on nail there.

[Kalashnikov5741]

I think you will also find that my cock fits in my hand very nicely, that means that god must want me to masturbate.

[alterangel182]

"If we want to learn truth, then we must examine alternatives to what we already believe." This is a giant philosophical blunder. Truth, by it's definition, is true regardless of belief. If I tell a person 2+2=4, it will be true whether or not they seek alternatives. Worst yet, this statement is self defeating: Have you examined alternatives to THAT statement? Even if you hadn't, would it still be true regardless or would it now be false until you did?

[AntiCitizenX]

@alterangel182

"This is a giant philosophical blunder"

It is the entire basis for understanding reality. I suggest you read up on empiricism and falsification. I even made a video on this recently.

[alterangel182]

@AntiCitizenX

"It is the entire basis for understanding reality."

Are you serious right now? I've already pointed out that this verification theory of meaning, is self-defeating, because even in verification reduction was true, it is ITSELF meaningless. It's like saying "I can't speak a word of English". The statement itself, defeats the very point it's trying to convey. I suggest taking a stronger philosophical stance.

[AntiCitizenX]

@alterangel182

"I suggest taking a stronger philosophical stance. "

When you can show me an alternative philosophical methodology that generates the technical know-how to build the internet and launch men into space, then we can talk about self-defeating statements. Until then, I'm not interested watching you try to justify your superstitious beliefs in magical bronze-age mythologies. Either put up or shut up.

[alterangel182]

@AntiCitizenX

Very mature. Ya philosophy doesn't deal with math, physics, or chemisty. Imagine that. Guess what, every single person that worked on launching a man into space, had some sort of philosophy. In which, they're worldview was affected. What if NASA believed the human race did not need to go to space because the human race belonged on earth? That would be a philosophical position. Luckily, they DID think we should explore the universe. Which is yet again, a philosophical position.

[AntiCitizenX]

@alterangel182

"every single person that worked on launching a man into space, had some sort of philosophy"

Yes. It is called empirical rationalism and scientific method.

"Luckily, they DID think we should explore the universe. Which is yet again, a philosophical position."

What we SHOULD do is completely arbitrary. What we ACTUALLY DO requires an understanding of objective reality. Empiricism lets us do things that no other philosophical stance does. What do you have that works better?

[alterangel182]

@AntiCitizenX

"Empiricism lets us do things that no other philosophical stance does"

Ya, spout self defeating statements and logical fallacies while contending that it is logical.

Ok. I'm done talking to you. It's been fun and I wish you luck. But until you have any understanding of even basic principles which you use the analyze the world around you, this conversation will go nowhere.

[AntiCitizenX]

@alterangel182

"But until you have any understanding of even basic principles which you use the analyze the world around you, this conversation will go nowhere."

It saddens me to see you so confident in your own empty assertions. But don't worry. Reality will beat you over the head sooner or later. I just hope you are humble enough to recognize it when it happens. Until then, best of luck and try not to get hurt.

[hardinmichael1981]

excellent! now when a theist asks me in a debate "what if you're wrong?"

I'll just tell them "unless we are willing to be wrong, we can never figure out what is right." and ask them to perform this experiment with me.

Great stuff.

[jrtien]

The problem I have with evolution is that we don't see species turning into other species. You don't see an animal that is part reptile and part mammal, or whatever. there aren't really any links. To me if all that links are missing then it means the evidence isn't neccessarily pointing the way we think. Evolution is probably jumping to conclusions.

[AntiCitizenX]

@jrtien

There are TONS of examples of exactly what you ask for. All you have to do is go to a library and find the biggest book with the word "biology" in the title somewhere and READ IT. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, but your evident failure to take the time and read the scientific literature.

[jrtien]

I agree with those statements. That makes a lot of sense. I don't know, and I don't profess to know.

[EVERYVERSER]

Let me make this simple: You know why we say "I don't know?"

because when you are after the truth, you have to eliminate all other likely possible answers, you hear a creak in your basement, it could be rats, so you check it out, why you already think its rats, and it does explain things right?

you want to eliminate other likely explanations. skepticism is easy, its instinctual, believers do it all the time, just selectively, admit it, you've been brainwashed by a cult w/ good PR.

[EVERYVERSER]

does anyone beleive in vampires?

you cant prove there are no vampires, so therefore they can exist right? even further, why dont you think your a brain in a jar, being fed this whole world via implants? there'd be no way to disprove it therefore you can believe this right? what about schizophrenics that hear voices? certainly they COULD be real but only audible to them right?

negative is the default position, if you assert unknowns as fact w/o reason you are lying. to be honest say IDK.

[sinistar99]

Hey by my brain in the jar there are some controls... Where it says "real life scenario" could you do me a favor and switch that to "Tropical Porn Scenario" thanks.

[jrtien]

Theism is not rational. The belief in God is irrational in my opinion because by faith a person must believe in God. There is no proof that can be presented to others. It doesn't exist, but that doesn't help the case for Atheism though.

 Atheism assumes that because one thing can't be proven then it must be false. That belief jumps to a conclusion as much as Theism does and also requires faith. Creationism is a lot more rational, but it doesn't solve the whole problem. If we're creations, whos?

[AntiCitizenX]

@jrtien

"Atheism assumes that because one thing can't be proven then it must be false. That belief jumps to a conclusion as much as Theism does and also requires faith."

I have a magical sandwich that will cure you of cancer after eating it. It also softens your skin and makes you more attractive to the opposite sex. Just the smell of it even improves your memory.

Now explain to me why you think it is irrational to reject this claim and assume it to be false.

[jrtien]

@AntiCitizenX Did you try the sandwich?

Seriously though, Atheism is in it's simplest form the lack of belief in a higher power right? Does that mean that it automatically places no validity on the concept of creationism. If so then that is an irrational conclusion. You don't have to be a god to create. Even humans can come together to make more humans. There is as much reason to believe that life was created as there is to believe it evolved. Besides the beginning of life is the mystery.

[AntiCitizenX]

@jrtien

"Did you try the sandwich?"

Yes, and I can personally testify that the sandwich fulfills all the claims, and more.

I'm trying to make an analogy here for you. For the same reasons you reject my sandwich claim, I reject Christianity and all religions. It is the same reason you do not believe in Thor or Zeus.

[AntiCitizenX]

@jrtien

"Besides the beginning of life is the mystery."

So? We also no idea what goes on inside black holes. Does that automatically mean every black hole contains a mountain of lollipops? 500 years ago, the origins of lightning strikes were a mystery. Does that automatically mean God was hurling them down? And what does this mean when scientists eventually engineer life 50 years from now?

Think about it.

[YurNotSpecial]

@AntiCitizenX

"And what does this mean when scientists eventually engineer life 50 years from now?"

You don't have to wait that long! :)

watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A

[sinistar99]

@jrtien There is not as much reason to believe life was created than to believe it has evolved. In fact evolution isn't a "belief" at all any more than gravity or basic laws of physics. It's varifiable, repeatable and requires no suspension of the physical laws as we know them. It requires no faith, just understanding.

[jrtien]

@sinistar99 There is no solid proof that evolution is more than a belief. The similarities in all lifeforms could simply be proof that we were all created from the same basic formula. Science is not a complete authority, and it only has answers in regards to the physical plane.

[sinistar99]

@jrtien There is just as much solid proof of evolution as there is of gravity. Again it's based on repeatable emperical evidence. We don't have to rely on "could be" or "might be" to see right in front of us what is. Parents pass their traits to their young. Some traits pass more often than others. There are mutations. Genomes change over time. It's a fact any way you slice it.

[vryc]

@jrtien "Atheism assumes that because one thing can't be proven then it must be false."

Not at all. There are two types of Atheism: Strong = I believe there is no god... Weak = I lack belief in god. Both positions are finalized by the exact same reasoning - because I have no good reason to believe in such a being. Both positions, no matter which way one states it, reach the same conclusion. There is no faith in this conclusion, there is only acceptance until evidence/reason deliver otherwise.

[bimboblacky]

@vryc Yeah, and I HIGHLY respect the (vast majority of) folks who realize the (I maintain quite correct) principle that "absence of evidence" =/= "evidence of absence." Having said that, I wish the UFO crowd would stop attempting 2 use that VERY principle 2 get many of us 2 "objectively" (ha ha ha) analyze what THEY present! I'm not sure that *they* fully understand the assertion in the first place, NOR any of its logical corollaries...

[vryc]

@jrtien (con't) "Atheism assumes..."

To say that Atheism makes assumptions about anything betrays a comprehensive lack of understanding of both defined terms and psychological evaluation. Would you say that the science of evolution is a belief? i.e. Scientists that use evolutionary theory 'believe' in evolution? You'd be wrong. They accept evolution as the theory that BEST fits all the available evidence. Were this to change, so would their disposition towards evolution. Atheism follows suit.

[zeroluo]

I dont really understand the last flow chart like diagram. But really, other than that, this is a really really informative videos. really really well done.

[AntiCitizenX]

@zeroluo

What do you not understand? Is it the belief perseverance?

All BP means is that even after an idea is debunked, people will still continue to believe it rather than revert back to any sort of "undecided" position. The only way around this is to try and physically replace the belief with something else that fills the void. The box just represents at 6:00 just represents the concept that an idea will exist in total isolation from any external evidence.

[RnBramwell]

@AntiCitizenX Exactly, just like anthropogenic global warming continues to have believers even though every major AGW tenet has been utterly debunked, as nonsense or as being due to other causes.

[oggleman]

the banana checklist was appropriate

[imameatcom]

Bananas are actually better open from the base.

[DetectiveTackett]

Confirmation bias works both ways. It helps to explain why people cling to secular philosophies despite the failure of atheistic, secular philosophies.

(There. Is that clearer?)

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

"Confirmation bias works both ways."

Actually, no it does not. The only way to cure yourself from confirmation bias is to acknowledge the power it has over you and then make conscious efforts to falsify your beliefs through alternative testing. "Secular philosophies" as you call them (ie, science) do this all the time, but religious believers are generally forbidden from trying under threat of hellfire and damnation. So sorry, no, it does not work "both ways."

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX " 'Secular philosophies' as you call them (ie, science) do this all the time..."

You keep twisting my words. Are you trying to understand or trying to distort?

When I say "secualr philosophy" or "materialistic philosophy" or even "your belief system" I am refering to your world-view. I am not refering to science. (Historically, science was not the product of a secualr world-view or culture.)

And, no, secularists do not usually question their assumptions. You don't.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

The especially ironic part for me is that you watched a video about confirmation bias and then immediately used the information from it to confirm your own bias. You even threw in some projection as well by accusing your adversaries of the very thing you are committing. For your own sake, try learning from my videos and applying that information to yourself. It will make you a far better person in the long run.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX "The especially ironic part for me is ..."

That you ignored the possibility that psychological factors might explain your own belief system? That would be about right. It cuts both ways.

[apocalypseap]

@DetectiveTackett He didn't ignore it. He has most likely considered religion, as well, and found it to be wanting of evidence in reality. There's a big difference between believing in imaginary friends and not believing in imaginary friends.

[DetectiveTackett]

@apocalypseap "imaginary friends"

That's rather begging the question ... which was my point.

You start with the assumption that there is no God, and dismiss the evidence in light of that assumption. You will tend to read the evidence in a way that confirms your assumptions. That tendency is just as much true for the atheist as for the theist.

[apocalypseap]

@DetectiveTackett No it isn't.

You start with the assumption that there are no goblins, and dismiss the evidence in light of that assumption. You will tend to read the evidence in a way that confirms your assumptions. That tendency is jus as much true for the one who doesn't believe in goblins as for the one who does.

[apocalypseap]

@DetectiveTackett Or how about this?

You start with the assumption that there are no fairies, and dismiss the evidence in light of that assumption. You will tend to read the evidence in a way that confirms your assumptions. That tendency is just as much true for the one who doesn't believe in fairies as for the one who does.

Getting the picture yet?

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

It never ceases to amaze me how you can review two classic experiments in confirmation bias, and then stubbornly continue to commit the very act you just learned about.  You are even projecting your own confirmatory tendencies onto others, as predicted by Part 7 of the series.

Actually, I started with the assumption of God since I was a kid. You claim to have evidence, but I have yet to encounter any "evidence" that is remotely compelling or even logically consistent.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

"That tendency is just as much true for the atheist as for the theist."

As I have explained before, this is not entirely correct. It is true that we are all human beings, but I have yet to ever see a theist openly acknowledge the power of his own cognitive bias and then take genuine measures to avoid them in his beliefs. This is because the entire concept of God relies solely on psychological manipulation to generate belief, rather than empirical observation.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX "... I have yet to ever see a theist openly acknowledge the power of his own cognitive bias and then take genuine measures to avoid them in his beliefs."

This is exactly how I would expect you to see things, given your world-view and your bias. My experience is that atheists do not think critically about their own world-views. Is that a valid observation or just an example of bias?

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

I don't know who keeps marking your comments as spam, but whoever it is should please stop.

[HybridD91]

@DetectiveTackett "My experience is that atheists do not think critically about their own world-views."

Most used to think like you(theists in general), so why should they evalute their views when most used to attack them?

[evilreligion]

@DetectiveTackett

IT really depends which "world views" you are talking about. Atheist can indeed be just as irrational as theists in dogmatically sticking to their world views. For example I know plenty of athesits that dogmatically stick to free market ideology. But almost always think critically when it comes to religion. As they lack a religion they are far less inclinded to be dogamtic when it comes to religion. Remember, unlike religion, atheism IS not a world view -its not even a belief

[evilreligion]

@DetectiveTackett

errr no the starting position, in the absense of any evidence, for the existence of anything is "I don't know" or "I have no belief that x exists". This is because in the absense of any evidence it is the only position we can sensibly have. Thus the staring default position is atheism. Until evidence is presented to support gods existence this is the only rational position.

I don't dismiss the evidence for God because I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to dismiss!

[HybridD91]

@evilreligion "I don't dismiss the evidence for God because I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to dismiss!" LOL, that's similar to what I say. When theists tell me to disprove God (after they ignore the logical contradictions with their God), I tell them you haven't given me any thing to disprove. If something isn't true, you obviously will not have any thing to present to support it.

[jrtien]

@evilreligion I was going to disagree but the word belief in the second quotes does indeed make your point valid. I personally believe in God and that life doesn't end with these bodies, but to elaborate on that is where I disagree with most. How can a person with no prior experience profess to be true that which they themselves have not seen? It is called faith, and it is dangerous to the blind and all around them.

[evilreligion]

@jrtien

As long as you accept that your belief is irrational (with supporting evidence) then we are in agreement. IF you think your belief is rational then you need to be able to show why. That demonstration of evidence is something I have thus far never seen from any thesit I have ever talked to. None have even come close to justifying their beleif in God. Generally it all comes down to some inaccesable personal experience - which is not actually evidence at all.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX "For your own sake, try learning from my videos and applying that information to yourself."

For your own sake, try learning from your own videos and applying that information to yourself.

[Forkroute]

OMFG...this is so funny

[DetectiveTackett]

Interesting.

Confirmation bias and belief perserverance are useful concepts in understanding why progressives and atheists believe the way they do, despite the failures of progressive policies and materialistic philosophy.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

Confirmation bias and belief perseverance are concepts born out of the scientific method. You just used a product of that "materialistic philosophy" to bash on materialistic philosophy, you moron. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX

I'm afraid you're the one trying to have your cake & eat it too. Historically, experimental science developed in a Christian culture among professing Christians. Any historian of science would tell you as much.

You called me a moron for allegedly making the mistake you have just made. Plus you seem to be aware of simple historical facts. What does that make you?

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

And now you're throwing up smoke screens and red herrings. You made the claim that "materialistic philosophy" is a failure. I am assuming you use that term synonymously with methodological naturalism, scientific method, or empirical rationalism. Yet confirmation bias and belief perseverance are products of those very same philosophies. So you basically cited the products of "materialistic philosophy" to debunk materialistic philosophy.

Again, don't be a moron.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

But hey, if you wanna talk bout science under Christianity, we can shift topics. The only problem is that Christianity had nothing to do with the scientific revolution. It just happened to occur under Christian-dominated cultures. If you want to thank Christianity, then go ahead. Unfortunately, if that's how you view the world, you also have to thank National Socialism for bringing us rocketry and Communism for inventing stealth aircraft. 

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX "Unfortunately, if that's how you view the world, you also have to thank National Socialism for bringing us rocketry and Communism for inventing stealth aircraft. "

Again, that wasn't really my point.

However, if (like some historians of science) I were to argue that Christianity made important -- even necessary -- contributions to the birth of science, I wouldn't rely on _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ argument, and your rebuttal would be irrelevant. Again.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

"Historically, experimental science developed in a Christian culture among professing Christians."

Your own words, guy. The only reason to bring this up is to credit Christianity the scientific revolution, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc. So either make your point clearly or stop wasting my time.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX "Your own words, guy. The only reason to bring this up..."

...was to falsify your claim that experiemental science ("the scientific method") was the product of materialistic philosophy.

The people who developed experimental science were NOT acolytes of materialism and were not raised with a materialistic wolrd-view. Materialistic philosophy was not present to produce anything.

Your claim has now been falsified.

[AntiCitizenX]

@DetectiveTackett

So you think... what... that Christianity gave birth to "materialistic philosophy?" What the hell is your driving point? Again, how is this not just post-hoc? You say this as if Christianity actually fostered science rather than try to squelch it at every turn.

[DetectiveTackett]

@AntiCitizenX Earlier you wrote: "You just used a product of that "materialistic philosophy" to bash on materialistic philosophy..."

I have used history to show that this claim is false.

Now you ask " What the hell is your driving point?"

My point was to falsify your claim. What part of "You are wrong" do you not understand?

[daniel7899999]

@AntiCitizenX I don't know what the hell he's trying to say either! His point is all scattered. I don't even know if he has a point!

[YiffMeImFurry]

So we are monkeys after all...

[9noitulover]

lol, his deity didnt make him smart enough to open it the easy way.

Pinch the other end.

theists, what r we gunna do with them?

[ITTIAA]

Out of the mouth of babes! My 8-year-old son just asked me:

So if god made bananas just right for human hands with a "pull tab" and stuff, why didn't god make coconuts, watermelons, and potatoes in the same shape? Did god only want us to eat bananas?

[AntiCitizenX]

@ITTIAA

that's actually a very interesting question! :)

[ITTIAA]

These videos are extremely helpful for me. I've been trying to understand how religion can take hold of intelligent people like it does, especially since I just witnessed a relative go through a religious conversion and adopt many beliefs that she previously rejected as immoral or unethical, etc.  She believes she is closer to god now and a better person; however, she has become defensive, arrogant, and bigoted. I hardly know her now!

[Manoichan]

I wonder if ComforgotImactuallysayingallth­isoncamera is a useful subject for this discussion. Everyone already knows he's a liar and con-artist that just started to believe his own con.

[AntiCitizenX]

@Manoichan

I do not think Comfort is a liar or con-artist. Those are words we usually associate with people who willfully deceive. I am strongly convinced that Comfort and Cameron honestly believe their own drivel. This is what makes it extra fascinating. Sure, they may be a little extreme, but so are the Mormons. They all believe crazy stuff, and habitually engage in intense mental gymnastics to rationalize those beliefs.

[Manoichan]

@AntiCitizenX

I see, good point.

[PachucoDesigns]

Magnificent.

[discussislam]

Brilliant vid!

It should be getting more views!

The whole series is excellent!

[quinnmcguee]

I'd like to see you do a video on willful ignorance. Seriously.  I've got Christian friends who come at me with these urban myths "proving" some miracle or another and even when I point out that they're urban myths or fallacies, they still continue to perpetuate the stories.

[AntiCitizenX]

Re-watch this video.  Belief perseverance is exactly what you describe.

[quinnmcguee]

Oh, ok. It's actually pretty scary when you think about it. Stuff like this should be taught in schools at an early age and re-enforced to produce a better thinking society. In the US, you don't really learn stuff like this unless you take a psychology course in college.

[AntiCitizenX]

I never even got the course. I had to dig out a used textbook from the bargain bin and read it myself.

[Exmech2]

I'd just discovered this video series. Well Done!!

[adolthitler]

One error - multiples of three you reported correct but 2 is not a multiple of three so should have been incorrect.

[AntiCitizenX]

The 2, 4, 6 is not being tested by the "multiples of three" hypothesis. Only the "3, 12, 21." So both "multiples of two" AND "multiples of three" satisfy the rule of "increasing integers."

[BuBBaGump014]

:P oh, and not that it really matters now, but you could have used Wason & Johnson-Laird's (1972) simpler example of confirmation bias: using a card-flipping method. In short, subjects had to test the hypothesis, "if it has a vowel on one side, it has an even number on the other" and there was A, B, 4, and 7. 95% of the subjects flipped the A and the 4 over instead of A and 7 (which is the better choice).

Wason, P.C. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning. London: Batsford.

[BuBBaGump014]

Hahaha ooooh Ray Comfort...if anyone is interested in Compliance Behaviour, I recommend checking out a paper called "I still think it was a banana: Memorable lies and forgettable truths", Kevin Allan & Fiona Gabber (2008). They were investigating how interpersonal influences on cognition can distort memory judgments

[BuBBaGump014]

From the abstract:

"...an individuals informational social influence can be selectively heightened when they express misinformation to someone who suspects no deceptive intent...thus [allowing] multiple social and cognitive factors impinging on memory accuracy to be manipulated and examined during...controlled dyadic social interactions"

Allan, K. & Gabbert, F. (2008). I still think it was a banana: Memorable 'lies' and forgettable 'truths'. Acta Psychologica, 127, 299-308.

[AntiCitizenX]

Thanks for sharing that! I was actually planning on doing part 4 about the unreliability of memory. I just DLed the paper and will read it ASAP.

[FreindlyRanger]

I'm not going to bother my arse checking the cited papers. Feck it, it makes sense, ergo I believe you.

I put that latin in there to seem intelligent. LOL.

Good work.

[NisseHult101]

Great stuff! Very informative.

[averagebear1]

Great series!! Most of the anti religious stuff on youtube either attacks the substance of beliefs or just pokes fun at them. You are addressing why people believe what they believe. Very informative.

[dfwsunking]

I thought of something AntiCitizenX. Suppose in the experiments which showed belief perserverence that the duration by which they held their belief was extended for longer than just a day or two. Suppose it was a month or a year or even a couple of years. How much stronger would their belief perserverance be? I tend to think it would be even greater. Compound that with other the human biases and viola! You have the recipe for instant belief and conformity.

[AntiCitizenX]

That is a very good question. It probably depends on many factors. For example, how much is the belief being reinforced in the meantime? Is it constantly getting brought up? Or is it dwindling in obscurity? There are also issues like the motivation to get the right answer. An example of this would be if there is money at stake. All of these things can culminate to push beliefs one way or another.

[misslipstickvogue]

AWESOME video.

I appreciate the sited studies, I'll check them out right now, most people aren't as science oriented as to site studies. :)

You're going on my subscription list for this.

Thanks!

[AntiCitizenX]

Woo hoo!

I'm glad you have the discipline to actually double-check my references. It reminds me of Michael Shermer's famous words when asked "why should we take your word on this?"

His answer:

"You shouldn't."

[mtanti87]

You are doing us a great service AntiCitizenX. Keep up the good work :)

[AntiCitizenX]

Thanks! I'm glad there are folks out there who appreciate my content.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

There's an interesting book on belief perseverance called "When prophecy fails". It's about the people that join the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh-c­ults and are convinced that the world will end on a certain date. The book is about how they react when the world doesn't end on that specific date; they simply come up with a new one. They're basically mental junkies, addicted to their beliefs, and incapable of even imagining an alternative possibility.

[sk8njoe]

Keep up the good work!

[gs117]

How do we get your vdeos into the millions of views?

[AntiCitizenX]

If I knew that, I'd have a lot more views :)

[walkerda5nine]

i dnt get it, the numbers went up in two :(

[charkopolis]

The numbers given were a sample of the rule "any three increasing integers". The fact the sample went up in two is inconsequential. But, the fact that all of a sudden (for many people), the moment you make the choice that the rule is "three consecutive even numbers", you rule out other possibilities; and that is some serious confirmation bias.

[torresut]

Mmm, bananas fit in our hands--so are dicks.

[KittyGotSued]

so "do" dicks.. ;)

[torresut]

Hey Kitty, I bet you're an editor. Yeah, yeah, I messed up.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Excellent video!

[ticobassie]

Ray Comfort probably also thinks that masturbating is wrong because there's no ridges on his penis.

[awolLDSasap]

Wait a minute while I plug my ears and repeat, " I know, Iknow, Iknow" JS is a twoo pawfit cuz I have a picture of Mormon in his teepee smokin a peace pipe.

[mtanti87]

The first experiment was not really fair. If you are allowed only 3 test cases it's hardly enough to feel confident that your hypothesis is a subset of the target set. If they were allowed to test until they felt they were satisfied I believe they would eventually start testing outside their hypothesis.

Also in the second experiment I really thought the test subjects would all say that the other fire fighter is better because why else would the college kid make a bogus report? very surprised

[AntiCitizenX]

They actually were allowed to keep guessing. See 1:37 in the video. I just kept it short for brevity.

Also remember that I'm summarizing 10 pages of experimental data in about 40 seconds, so there are tons of details I'm omitting. For example, the "debriefing" was really a huge elaborate act put on for the subjects, where they are told things like "for the experiment, we needed you to think such and such, so we made up this report." But yes, either way it is cool to see the results.

[ParamoreFTW]

Brilliant video as always.

[kalamain]

People don't like to be shown to be wrong as they think that they will never be listened to again. People *Like* to be liked.

And to be liked you must...Maybe not 'right' as much as 'Not wrong'

This may seem a silly way of saying it. But its something that scientists must accept....Sometimes you are going to be wrong.

The important question is...What are you going to do about it?

[CrazyWoWGamer]

Very well made, i agree with what your saying. plus, a banana? is that the best criationists can come up with? there are many things that fit perfectly into our hands, doesnt mean god made them.

[DodoPandemic]

And what kind of banana does he use for this brilliant argument? A domesticated banana, bred by humans!

[jbz3]

Awesome video. And the stronger the faith, the harder it becomes to accept that you're wrong. Even when the flawed reasoning is debunked, they usually think the rest of the pile is legit, just like after that debriefing.

No one likes feeling wrong.

[DodoPandemic]

Great vid, couldn't be otherwise with a Sagan quote at the end. Definitely interesting, but why do we do it? I mean I can see why, when it pertains beliefs, like religion, which we (unjustly) tie into our identity, but why do we do it even with the less significant things?

Again you've given me food for thought.

[mtanti87]

I think we evolved to be closed minded. It could be that it takes a lot of energy for the brain to reject a previously accepted idea so we evolved to conserve energy.

The same thing happens with habits. When doing something you always have done it uses much less energy in the brain than when you do something new, so we evolved to strongly follow our habits.

Sam Harris also found that believing activates the reward system in our brain whilst disbelieving activates the nausea system.

[AntiCitizenX]

There was a bit in Scientific American on this a while back. They showed various experiments to suggest that accepting an idea is "easier" than rejecting one, much along the lines of what you are saying. For example, do you agree with the statement that "5 + 7 = 12 ?"  Normally, people say "yes" immediately. But if I had instead asked "5 + 7 = 15," you would actually hesitate for a moment, indicating that rejection is tougher than acceptance.

[AntiCitizenX]

Now THAT is a great question !

There is some speculation about why we behave this way. Michael Shermer has a good hypothesis, in that there is a survival advantage is over-believing things rather than under-believing. So we just believe everything we can get our brains on and sort it all out later. That's the best I've heard to date.

[DodoPandemic]

Actually that made perfect sense. I remember seeing a video with Dawkins and Nesse and Nesse had a really good analogy to explain it. In a matter of life and death the under believer cannot be wrong a single time.