Confirmation Bias In Research

This information could challenge the credibility of the article because it attempts

The author’s credibility is established before, throughout, and at the end of the article by giving sources from media news, such as CNN and other publications from the New York Times. The problem with CNN being a “media” news source is that information isn’t always proven true and is often opinionated. On ,“Karen Douglas, Business Insider, 2017”, from a poll taken of 3000 random participants, CNN was considered more or less distrustworthy. This poll supports the statistical evidence that declares CNN’s information 47% untrue or false on (CNN File PunditFact 2017) . If David uses CNN for statistical reports to support his left sided point of view, how can we know if what he says is even true? We can’t. However, the author uses emotional reasoning and empathy to sway the reader into understanding and accepting his point of view, even if the view is not 100% true.

If a reader was not looking for proof of an author’s argument or reliable information, i’m sure they would find this article very convincing; I do not, because in order to do so, I must place my trust in unfounded information.

Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to prefer information that reinforces a thought or believe that they have. People demonstrate this bias when they retain information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotional issues and for deeply rooted beliefs. (Science Daily)

The confirmation bias is the tendency to search for information that confirms our ideas and beliefs. This arises from our eargences to get a good solution. Often times most peopel seek evidence that supports thier ideas more readily than they search for facts that might refute them. Karen for example is using examples from the past regarding the election and who has won to demonstarte that her brother will win. "Karen your can't be serious. What about the issues, such as school poilces and procedures?" "Those issues don't matter. Regina Hoyt won becauseh she was populr last year. The only real issue is popularoty." This is an example of how Karen is searching for information that confirms her ideas that he brother will win the election because

Confirmation Bias: only explore information that supports our ideas Hindsight Bias: reporting untruthfully that we projected an outcome Availability Heuristic: calculating possibilities grounded on ease of recall Base-Rate Fallacy: disregarding information about universal principles Representativeness Heuristic: making decisions grounded on stereotypes

A fatal flaw is someone’s error that can always bring them down; a fault that always overcomes that person. Everyone has a flaw. Some people, however, have more prominent flaws than others. Procrastination is a considerably common fatal flaw. Just like all those who can call it their flaw, it is also mine. I have had many problems with procrastination, specifically at scout camp, but I have also had success with it, and I can prevent it in many constructive ways.

The true topic of the article shocked me and as I thought about it a question

I agree with most of what you said on McChesney's claim. I have been in those situations myself, reading a newspaper that just has not earned my trust, but the real issue I believe is that many people do not stop to challenge whether or not what is being written is biased or even true. I fear that people read, digest, and agree without bothering to ask questions or further investigate a claim themselves. That is why it is important to re-establish a strong reporting environment that welcomes writers who prove it through evidence and research rather than a catchy headline to inform the

Backfire effect is the act of denying facts on a topic because one's beliefs are typically desired over or are in contrast with factual information. This thought process is similar to confirmation bias. In confirmation bias one tends to lean on information that supports their beliefs rather than examining or even considering the opposite side of the topic. In both cases, the person who is reviewing the information does not want to be wrong. The difference between the two is that in backfire effect when confronted and proven wrong, their beliefs grow stronger. No one wants to be wrong or confronted with information that will challenge their beliefs, which is why we usually fall back on these types of defensive mechanisms.

What I think about this article is that is speaks the truth and is spoken from a very intelligent man’s mouth. What he mentions in this article makes you second-guess yourself on a statistic you thought very much was an accurate one. “We suspect that statistics may be wrong, that people who use statistics may be “lying”—trying to manipulate us by using numbers to somehow distort the truth.”(Joel57). When thinking about this quotation, it really does make sense. Wouldn’t you do anything to get somebody to believe what you’re saying is true, even if it came to lying to them? I have learned the hard way that most of what comes out of people’s mouths are lies. This is why this quote makes a lot of sense to me. People out there would say and do anything to get you to believe them. This is why a lot of statistics are said, because the person saying it is just trying to manipulate you. I had never taken that perspective on statistics, until now.

It has been said that vaccines have been the reason why there has been a rise in autism, but the studies prove that wrong. Parents want to "protect their children" so they decide not to vaccinate them, but these studies show no risk to children. This article shows the point of view of the scientist and pediatricians who tests the vaccines, to inform the parents well. This source gives me good information on answering my question because it tells me that these vaccines have been tested which later on it says there's no negative effect on getting vaccines. I can use this source by providing evidence from the text that states that vaccines have been well tested proving no harm. The author is biased because she advocates that they test the vaccines

The first question that was ask is “Why do you think people are so quick to accept statistics are true? As I started researching this paper I was amazed at the information that was out there. I came a crossed a study” “Psychological Study Reveals Why Misinformation Is So Effective” published in (URLhttps://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/20/psychological-study-reveals-why-misinformation-so-effective)

The authors bias seemed to be ever so slightly for mandatory vaccinations, her style was fairly unbiased in most ways but some of the quotes she chose to include such as “But state Superintendent Tom Torlakson said vaccinating students ‘is the law, and it’s the right thing to do for public health.’” other than a few quotes though, it was fairly unbiased.

will be explain here. In deductive approach, Investigator has to pay attention on the development of research hypothesis by which we can reach to result. Formation of hypothesis is totally depend on the predetermine study and discovered theories. When the hypothesis is complete than investigator have to test these hypothesis on the basis of collected data may be it can accept or reject .There are following three steps by which we can use the deductive method approach.