Very cool animation using a card trick to illustrate confirmation bias.

From hacknot.info, I'm hosting the copy of it seen in this post which is edited to loop 5 times, the absolute maximum amount of loops that should be required for one to realize what's going on.







'And it relates to this forum how?'

Imagine you had a predisposition to believe the magician had actual magic/psychic powers before you participated in the illusion.
Would you try to figure out how the trick was done? Of course not, because you wouldn't realize that you had fooled yourself.
fwiw.

confirmation bias can work both ways, IMHO.

My son figured it out on the first try....me, (slow as I am) it took two tries.

Does DU think 9/11 research is the equivalent of a card trick?

:banghead:

I guess so.

okay, I get the trick but how is that a metaphor for CT versus OCT?Because people are only looking for their "card""?

"Confirmation bias is a type of statistical bias describing the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Apparently, though, confirmation bias dissipates with repeated exposure to non-supportive evidence:

"More recent studies, however, have shown that while confirmation bias tends to be present as an initial condition, the repeated presentation of disconfirmatory data induces changes in theoretical thinking. In other words, the initial disconfirmatory data are regarded as the result of error, or some other externally attributed factor; it is only after similar results or data are repeatedly obtained that a change in causal reasoning strategies occurs."

of confirmation bias, amoung others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

In reading the info at the links you provided, confirmation bias is a form of a very long list of biases in cognition. Cognitive dissonance is seen to be a theoretical cause of some cognitive biases -- article does not specifically single out confirmation bias.

interestingly Cognitive dissonance is thought to be a cause of confirmation bias, amoung others.

Article doesn't state that it might be a cause of confirmation bias, it simply states that it might be a cause of some cognitive biases which may or may not include confirmation bias.

I say tomatoe.

But, I thought it might be interesting to discuss cognitive dissonance:

In thinking about it, I think this dynamic applies to the OCT defenders slightly more than it does to the skeptics.

Wikepedia definition from one of your links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions."

Article goes on to to say:

"The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956 after observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed."

Apparently, members of that UFO doomsday cult increased their efforts to recruit new members after their leader's failed prophecy.

The dissonance between the two cognitions (1) their belief in the cult, and (2) the failed prophecy actually (according to the theory) drove the members to attempt to more firmly establish their belief in the cult and it's leader by increasing efforts to bring in more recruits -- as if a larger member base would justify their cult beliefs.

Similarly, a believer in the OCT, upon being confronted with discrepancies in the official story, may engage in like behavior -- by attacking alternative theories and maligning the characters of skeptics.

Skeptics, on the other hand, usually do not have a vested interest in the OCT, and probably do not experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with discrepancies.

One could argue that skeptics sometimes have a vested interest in their alternative theories, and that the same dynamics would apply when discrepancies in their theories are pointed out. I think this is probably accurate.

However, there are many skeptics (myself included) who do not adhere to a particular theory (except that it is wise to question whatever this current administration has to say) and who simply need much more evidence in order to believe the official story. This latter group, IMHO, is less likely to experience cognitive dissonance, and, may therefore be less likely to demonstrate confirmation bias.

:blush: Shhhhh!

But then on the 2nd time, I realized my 1st pick wasn't there anymore too

And appropriate.

I have to admit, I didn't really pay attention until the second pass, and then I got it.

I also agree with Hope2006 that confirmation bias is not exclusive to those on one side or the other of an issue.

(Although, in this forum, it seems far more prevalent on the CT side).

1. This trick uses five networks.
2. Turn on the TV.
3. Watch the towers crumble.
4. The announcer keeps talking about hijacked planes.
5. Did Arab hijackers cause the Trade Center to collapse?

This is a perfect explanation for why some people, despite all evidence, continue to believe in the official conspiracy theory -- 19 Arabs directed by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan outwits the most sophisticated defense system in history -- but it has no relevance to explaining the beliefs of the mainstream of the 9/11 truth movement. Here's why: Like most magic tricks, the simulation is based on a lie. That lie is that the cards you are shown at the end are the same group of cards you were shown at the beginning. Moreover, a coercive suggestion is used: that "your card" is missing.

In fact, you have been told a lie, in a deft way that makes you believe the lie. This is how the official conspiracy theory works. So many of the assertions of the official conspiracy theory have been proven wrong, yet for some reason, some people persist in believing some of these lies, despite all evidence to the contrary.

By contrast, the 9/11 truth movement is largely operating in a field of incomplete information. That's very different from being coercively told to believe in lies. The context of the 9/11 truth movement is missing information, which requires reasonable people to try to make connections between disparate facts to cover gaps in knowledge.

So the card trick explains the bizarre beliefs of the so called debunkers of the 9/11 truth movement, but has little relevance for the mainstream of the 9/11 truth movement itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Your notion that confirmation bias and other drivers in human behavior is irrevelent to the 9/11 truth movement tells me you should carefully consider your thought processes.

Not that I'm surprised about that. My post was about how the card trick simulation explains the bizarre adherence of some people to the official conspiracy theory, but is not relevant to the truth movement.

That's because the card trick is based on a coercive lie, like most magic tricks. Between the 9/11 Commission, which is widely acknowledged to contain false information, and the media's gross misrepresentation of the Bush administration, the public has been subjected to coercive lies surrounding 9/11. That is analogous to the card trick.

The truth movement's main cognitive problem is missing information.

My post was not about confirmation bias which is a universal cognitive phenomenon.

The magic trick is not based on a lie. All the information needed to figure out the trick is right in front of your face, but ones tendency to use confirmation bias prevents them from accurately accessing the information.

This behavior is very similar to many in the 9/11 truth movement.

The truth movement's main cognitive problem is NOT missing information. It's main problem is a deep seated desire to see the Bush administration neutered regardless of the facts. Ask yourself this; if Al Gore had been president on 9/11, the 9/11 forum would be on Free Republic rather than on DU. Truths are found all the time without complete information. 9/11 issues are no exception.

Also let me add the 9/11 truth movement clearly does lack information in some areas.

Those areas ARE NOT the endless controlled demolition nonsense, the no plane hit the pentagon foolishness, the WTC 7 was pulled, drones, remote control, lasers, covert technology, NORAD stand-downs, War games yadda, yadda, yadda. All of those issue detract from finding out about issues that are important, like why the intelligence community failed so miserably and why know one is held accountable.

You make some good points.

Yes, if 9/11 had happened under Gore, we would probably see forums like this over on FR.

Yes, some of the "endless" threads we see here on some of the more bizarre alternative theories may be serving to distract us from discovering the facts.

Yes, many would like to see the Bush administration "neutered".

But, you are also making some pretty significant assumptions.

For instance, you are assuming that what the 9/11 Commission concluded is accurate (or at least reasonably so). No doubt there were failures in intelligence (the main conclusion in the report), but, what you don't seem to be asking is whether these failures were oversights, or were they deliberate, or a combination of the two.

You also don't seem to be asking a third question in connection to these failures. Why is is that, not only has no one been held accountable, but there have been people who have actually been rewarded for their service despite the failures (see Tenet awards below).

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeTenet.htm
http://www.nixoncenter.org/Press%20Release_Tenet%20Dinner.htm

namely, that the 'official story' of intelligence failure was in fact a failure. What you cannot confront (or more likely won't) is that the available evidence underdetermines theory selection on many issues. Not on pods, not on no-plane-at-pentagon, but on several issues that still bear quite heavily on the true nature of the plot

One example: you are aware, no doubt, that the RFU's story for its failure to act on the FBI Minneapolis office's request to search Moussaouis's computer is very likely a lie - one obviously designed to (poorly) cover up knowledge of the Phoenix Memo.

The details of this episode, which are well known, have been posted here before and many here could recount them for you. Perhaps the most salient aspect of the matter is that a TIME magazine article reported that the Phoenix Memo reached the desks of RFU chief Frasca and also Michael Maltbie before 9/11, according to congressional sources (likely associated with the Joint Inquiry of 2002). Yet in his Joint Inquiry testimony, Frasca lies and says he never saw the memo prior to 9/11.

Here' of course, is where we come to the heart of the present matter. Why he lied, I cannot say. But I have not said, YOU HAVE. By virtue of your assurance that it was incompetence and intelligence failures that helped the plot along, you are saying he lied to cover what can only be some form of intelligence failure, incompetence or similar embarrassment, but not complicity.

Yet on the available evidence, you do not and cannot know that. He may have lied to cover up something more sinister. It has not been ruled out by anything offered as evidence. Neither Coleen Rowley, not Harry Samit, can say with sufficient evidence that the reasons for the lie are fully known to them. Their conclusions are like ours: made on the basis of incomplete evidence.

Confirmation bias is a funny thing. Shows up again and again.

I'm not new here, and I know your shtick, LARED. I don't expect a fair response (though remember it's never to late to change :<). I do want others to see that your assumptions are just as ungrounded in some places as those you roundly criticize for their flights of fancy.

First, you do not even know if he lied. In my work I get memos all the time. I often do not read every single one of them, I skim them at times. Most of the time I read them in their entirely and if asked two weeks later about it would not have a clue if I read it or not.

Also assuming he did lie, all evidence I have seen points to, indicates, its purpose being to cover up some form of intelligence failure, incompetence or similar embarrassment, but not complicity.

What interesting to me is that confirmation bias is about having sufficient evidence to draw the proper conclusion, but missing it because of a bias. Yet in light of this framing of the issue in this OP the CT'er continues to clamor about incomplete evidence being their stumbling block to truth. Well here's some truth for you, you will never have complete evidence the way the so called truth seeker goes about determining their truth. Why, because they have made up their minds that there is a an evil cabal at work, and will always, always find something incomplete with the evidence they have because it will never be good enough to confirm their bias.

I'll assume you are trying to be fair on this point.

Further evidence Frasca lied: the 'memo' was disseminated widely at FBI headquarters. Frasca was hardly the only one to get it. Others admitted they had seen it prior to 9/11. He was the unit chief. Are we to assume that no one ever mentioned it to him, or that he never had a discussion about it?

Several people at the RFU and in other areas of FBI Headquarters became aware of the Minneapolis FBI's interest in obtaining a FISA warrant. It strikes me as highly implausible that none of those who were in on the presumed conversation to determine whether to send the FISA request up the ladder, had seen the memo.

Again you impute motives to me that do not exist, LARED. I have not and do not insist that ambiguous materials be seen as complicity rather than incompetence. I have written again and again that in a situation of theory underdetermination, like this one, it is not permissable to seize on a conclusion (incompetence) before all possibilities have been explored, and said only that we must be willing to face all possible conclusions.

Complicity has not been explored, not at least by the official investigative effort (by their own admission), and so it remains an open possibility.

From the nature of your participation here, it seems you will not even consider complicity. You do not take the pattern of omissions and distortions in the Commission Report - an INARGUABLE, OBVIOUS PATTERN to those even remotely in the know about the relevant information - as evidence of likely complicity. In government crimes, there are typically layers and layers of separation between the architects of the plot and those who wind up doing the deed. Straightforward evidence is rarely available which links doer and architect. It's a process that requires some creative speculation, which will always be open to challenge.

For instance, as a mere citizen remote from the document rooms in the halls of power, there is almost no possible way of proving a hypothesis that said something like "Pakistani intelligence arranged 9/11 at the behest of elements within American intelligence." This hypothesis, if true, would mean that much of the plot might look similar to what is claimed in the 9/11 Commission report, differeing only in a few key respects that would be kept as well hidden as possible. It is not disputed that the very powerful, 150,000 agent-strong ISI has been a handmaiden of US intelligence (to quote William Pepper) for many years. It is not in dispute that general Mahmud Ahmed authorized a payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta just before 9/11. It is not in dispute that the Commission avoids this information. In one of its most absurd passages, the Commissioners tell us on page 172 that "the US Government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

'Little practical significance?' In other words, 'don't follow the money', even though it's a cardinal principle in criminal investigations.

There is much more evidence for the hypothesis I mentioned above, by the way. I do not think we should not rule it out a priori; why do you seem to?

Is it correct and proper to refer to those who claim to support the Official Conspiracy Theory as
"OCT'ers"? What about OCT Spin Doctors. Would they be "OCTSPD'ers"? It's that "'er" part I don't understand.

They'd be happy to explain things to you, and that way, you don't change the subject from what's being discussed.

Happy to help a newbie out!

is that the mods agree with you, and disagree with anyone who questions the official story? Thus, the term "CT'er" to refer to those who question?

n/t

even though it makes no sense -official conspiracy theoristers.
The worst is "tin hatters" - it is so trailer park sounding. "oh it's them tin hatters again Merle, can't they just leave well enough alone?"

Another thought I had about the card trick is that, in order to successfully fool the player, it counts on the player's faith that the card trick is legit.

Much like the OCT which counts on the people having faith that it is the truth, regardless of missing and misleading evidence. It also counts on faith in the 9/11 commission, regardless of conflict of interest.

:thumbsup: :hi:

:hi:

You won't find many websites that are defending The Official Story, but you will find many CT sites that try to trick people. The best debunking sites explain how CT tricks are done.

9/11 researchers, by definition, are interested in learning the truth. OCT Spin Doctors, by definition, are in the business of trying to trick people into:

* Believing that they (OCT Spin Doctors) are legitimate 9/11 researchers.

* That our Gov't and its agencies may be negligent and/or incompetent, but wholly incapable of evil.

* That all 9/11 researchers are nothing more than "tin-foil hattted" CONSPIRACISTS...unlike OCT Spin Doctors, who are of course, rational, objective...whores.


It is incumbent, in my opinion, that all sincere researchers do their part to help expose OCT Spin Doctors for what they are: paid tricksters.

Complaining about spin doctoring in a post that is nothing but spin doctoring.

Very clever.

Then why are you helping to "expose" them?

- Make7

Ya' think that may contribute to you falling prey to Confirmation Bias on occasion?




You can't compare spin doctors to researchers; you've set up a false dichotomy and are ignoring the possibility that disinformation may be a product of the OCT spin doctors. How can you tell the difference?
Make no mistake, there are hundreds of conspiracy theory spin doctors who are only interested in being titillating and sensational, with no regard to furthering the truth. My angle is that if all researchers(myself included) used impeccable logic to investigate, we'd end up circling around the truth a hell of a lot quicker than the way things are proceeding now. Many people who call themselves 911 Researchers don't know a damn thing about logic and critical thinking. They don't have the skills required to not be fooled.
Please realize that what I'm advocating is not in support of the administration. I'd like people to be able to smell bullshit wherever it is. It's precisely because our peers are so weak in critical thinking skills that propaganda thrives.

I wish I would have used the word knowledge instead of skills in this sentence:
"They don't have the skills required to not be fooled."

Skill is accurate, but I didn't mean to be insulting. I didn't mean talent; something that people either have or they don't. I meant learned skill; something that we are all capable of achieving.
I'm sure we'd all agree that schools in our culture suck when it comes to teaching critical thought. The last thing they want is a student population that can smell bullshit a mile away. ;)

Gotta love the spin being spun by someone who purports to disdain spin even while spinning his/her own spin.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

They've got the Bush admnistration, the DoD, the major corporations and the corporate media (which is owned by the corporate media)on their side; why would anyone need a site to "defend" it?

Do you have a specific one(s) in mind? Are you referring to sites where the NIST, 911 Commission and similar reports are published?

thanks.

"greyl" implied (or said directly) that there are some/lots? of OCT sites. I asked to name some and his response was "no". I'll leave to others to figure out why he said no. I won't speculate that it's because he CAN'T, but now I'm asking any other OCT'er to name some.

What do you think is a "total bullshit" site? All of them?

your post #34 was a non sequitur to my #24.

you claimed that sites rarely, if ever, make a case for the official theory, yes?
My point was that the most people get information from the Bush administration and corporate media which support the official view so it is not necessary to create sites when people have it thrown at them 24 hours a day in the form of propaganda. Some believe it without question, like yourself, others don't and have to find a way of getting their information out.

In what way does my response not follow what you said? I notice that when you don't understand something you say that it is illogical or a non sequitur.

I'm not a supporter of what you know of as The OCT. I've never linked to a site that defends what you call The OCT.
I just don't care to give bullshit a free pass, that's all.