Psychology Observation Aspects: Biases, Assumptions, and Interpretations

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

The accuracy of scientific data collection in relation to social ideas sex, or race is an inevitably unreliable system.

giving a skewed opinion on how the events of each occurrence actually went down.  The idea of

In terms of the anchoring bias, regularly revisit of the original decision based on the newly gathered data needs to be set up within the organization. Additionally, the decision maker should avoid the Confirmation Trap in which Bazerman and Moore (2009) argues that people tend to seek information that confirms their expectations and hypotheses. To recognize the bias, Mike Francis could

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

The types of scientific bias are confirmation bias, appeal to novelty, and appeal to tradition. Confirmation bias is when data is interpreted based on your own beliefs. Appeal to novelty is when data is interpreted correct based on solely being new. Appeal to tradition is the opposite in which data is interpreted because it’s based in tradition. Confirmation bias and appeal to novelty is present in Semmelweis’ story.

Martin investigates how cultural stereotypes of the two sexes are subtly incorporated into descriptions of the egg and sperm in scientific papers. She expresses that giving stereotypical roles to the egg and sperm has the “power to naturalize our social conventions about gender” (501). By associating the egg with feminine traits and the sperm with masculine traits, scientists make these

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

Occasionally, fact-based reports contain judgments made by experts; these can be mistaken as facts. Descriptions expressing

For example, if it is believed that during the full moon occurs an increase in emergency room admissions, realize revenue during the full moon, but it will not pay attention to the moon when income occurs for other nights the rest of the months. A tendency to do so eventually unjustifiably strengthens their belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects. This tendency to pay more attention to data that support our beliefs that the data that counteract them is especially harmful when beliefs are nothing more than prejudice. If our beliefs are firmly established in evidence and valid experiments, the tendency to pay more attention and weight to data that conform to our beliefs not should take them, usually

The observer must be trained in un-biased observation skills and how to effectively identify critical factors

Sometimes the charge of being biased can be justified. When an individual has clearly chosen a side, it does not mean he or she has conducted an even, equal analysis. On the other hand, the individuals who are not considered neutral can still be fair in the argument. For example, a theist believes in the different laws regarding nature, but he or she is also open to other possibilities regarding the supernatural intervention. As a result, both of these ideas are constant with her viewpoint of the world; therefore, she is then able to form an opinion on its own merit (Koukl, 2009,

Griffin (2012) defines the objective approach as the assumption that truth is singular and is accessible through unbiased sensory observation; committed to uncovering cause-and-effect relationships. In reading about the objective approach, I’ve learned that it cannot be opinionated; it has to be fact driven, proven, tested, useful, simple, predictable and measurable. This theory explains the past and present, and it predicts the future (Griffin, 2012).

The last mistake is failing to correct for skewed vision, in fact many people tend to interpret information for their own interests. A self-serving role bias on the

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat