What's the difference between "cherry-picking" and "confirmation bias"?

[stevea]

CHerry Picking is only picking evidence that will support your position regardless of the context the information is in.
Confirmation Bias is more or less ignoring evidence that conflicts with your position.
They are different, but they tend to go hand in hand.Where there is one, you almost always find the other.

"Picking ... only [supporting evidence]" and "Ignoring evidence that conflicts" sound like two sides of the same coin; not two separate things.

Is there such a thing as "refutation bias" or "clinker picking" where an observer chooses data against his conclusions or rejects evidence in favor of his proposition ? Of course not, except perhaps in deviant psychology. So the word "confirmation" is a nearly valueless adjective.

"Bias" is a nice clear term for the whole lot.

 

[quadraginta]

"Picking ... only [supporting evidence]" and "Ignoring evidence that conflicts" sound like two sides of the same coin; not two separate things.

Is there such a thing as "refutation bias" or "clinker picking" where an observer chooses data against his conclusions or rejects evidence in favor of his proposition ? Of course not, except perhaps in deviant psychology. So the word "confirmation" is a nearly valueless adjective.

"Bias" is a nice clear term for the whole lot.

It's not the point you are trying to make, but this touches very close to the idea Jeff Corey was sharing about the Wason triplet experiment. It showed how a strategy of trying to disprove the rule you think is the right one can lead to a quicker correct solution than attempts at positive verification.

(I think I said that right. If not the fault is mine, and not Jeff's, and hopefully he'll straighten me out. )

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yes. And another thing about confirmation bias is that it controls the sort of evidence that people seek to confirm a rule that they have no possible vested interest in. Who cares if, "All cards with a vowel on one side have an even number on the other"?

 

[BPScooter]

Hi all--Stevea, I get what you're saying and drkitten was pretty much right in interpreting what I meant. If I see something funny about the sampling, or measures, or procedures *and* the author doesn't address it somehow (limitations of study, etc.) then I'm definitely not as likely to carefully read the paper or recommend it for publication, or cite it (or if a student, not make them rewrite it). I agree that how I select items in a literature review or something could show *my* bias. I think that's a part of a good lit review, though, that it covers pro and con opinions and theories.