The Empirical Manifesto

I was first introduced to confirmation bias when dentin wondered if my ever-positive attitude wasn't its byproduct. A valid question as it turns out when I looked it up to see what he meant:

A type of cognitive bias in which people tend to seek out information which agrees with previously held beliefs. They also lend more weight to informational input which supports their beliefs, while discarding contradictory information.^*

Right off the bat I knew that my primary modus operandi was to assume I was wrong, and seek out to first debunk my beliefs prior to strengthening them through validation. So no, I do not suffer from confirmation bias. But I know people who do. While that kind of cognitive defect doesn't work for me, what harm is there in it working for others who by all accounts are just trying to survive in this world day by day? If your own personal pair of rose-colored glasses is working for you, where's the harm?

The confirmation bias is one of the most common cognitive biases, and it can also be the most dangerous, because it can lead people into very poor decisions on the basis of questionable information.^*

This is why cognitive distortion is so harmful and actually doesn't work long-term. Click the graphic to understand how not to think and why:



"There is no more important skill in today's world than being able to think about, understand, and act on information in a way that is both effective and responsible. Critical thinking transforms you from a passive member of society into an active participant in the ideas and issues of the day. It empowers you to better understand nearly every single aspect of everyday life, from health and nutrition to science and technology to philosophical and spiritual belief systems."^*

If there is such an easy, repeatable way to verify that what we may believe is wrong, and an easy, repeatable way to greatly enhance all aspects of our quality of life, why don't more people do it? The answer to this is far more problematic - some people just don't wish to change.

Why is it so hard to change? Fear. "Below are some -- only some -- of the more common issues that get in the way of change. They are presented in no particular order and in no particular order of severity. Some of these are reasonable, logical causes for simply generally not wanting to change things. Some of these are simple glitches in judgement or logic or data collection. Some reach the level of toxicity and can be so extremely painful that many people wouldn't find it comfortable to imagine how someone can sustain such difficult attitudes and beliefs."

• fear of changing into someone else unknown


• fear of losing one's "self"


• fear of the enormity of the work


• fear of easy change


• fear of getting stuck half-way


• fear of losing secondary gains


• fear of betting hope against change and losing hope


• fear of the responsibility of changes


• fear of happiness and self-esteem #1


• fear of happiness and self-esteem #2


• fear of letting someone else off the hook


• self-directed anger, not deserving of change


• unrealistic expectations


• environmental triggers


• social "supports" and pressures


• fear of losing friends and family


• old habits die hard


• baloney from another planet


• the requirement of mourning, absorption and self-pity


• the fear of letting loose, running amuck

"But most fear is not irrational. The fear stems from a lack of understanding, a lack of experience, or similarities to a negative experience. With unknowns and bad vibes looming, the risks of the situation start to completely overshadow any benefits. The fearful tend to dig in their heals. They have trouble seeing benefits at all and begin to distrust those who push them too hard. They aren’t going to suddenly lose their fear if you try to trick them, manipulate them, or slip something past them. Furthermore, the fear can feed on itself. Selling benefits in this situation is simply futile. If you hope to resume progress, you have to reduce the fear. And as with most problems, you can’t reduce a symptom without identifying and addressing the cause. You have to get to the underlying cause of the fear."^*

I imagine one day living in a world where everyone I interact with is open and receptive to resolving conflict though the simple mechanics of not just acknowledging that other viewpoints may exist, but actively understanding them to avoid future conflict. To address fear - not to showcase it - but to conquer it.

At the risk of introducing the Holmesian Fallacy (much like the flawed golden-rule), it is nonetheless a good starting point:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

"The presumed independence of emotion and reason are illusory. Rather than chosing which is right, we should understand how they relate and let them work together."^* Former President Richard M. Nixon said, "People are persuaded by reason, but moved by emotion." I awkwardly get moved to action by being emotionally motivated by reason. While I may ultimately disagree with someone's opinion about how they wish to live their life, I will only argue that they are in error if they come by their conclusions erroneously.

Solipsism is an epistemological position that one's own perceptions are the only things that can be known with certainty. Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of knowable reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no perceptual independent existence.

An intriguing paradox concerning solipsism was described by the British writer Eric Bond Hutton in 1989. As a child Hutton often had lucid dreams in which people and things seemed as solid and real as in waking life. This led him to wonder whether life itself was a dream, even whether he existed only in somebody else's dream. Once in a while he would have a pre-lucid dream (in which one suspects that one is dreaming). He always found these somewhat disturbing, but one day hit upon a magic formula to be used in them: "If I find myself asking 'Am I dreaming?' it proves that I am, since this question would never occur to me in waking life." Yet, such is the nature of dreams, he could never recall it when he needed to. Many years later, when he came to write about his childhood fascination with dreams, he was struck by a contradiction in his earlier reasoning. True, asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream would seem to prove that one is. And yet that is precisely what he had often asked himself in waking life. Therein lay a paradox. What was he to conclude? That it does not prove one is dreaming? Or that life really is a dream?

Similar in nature, though not involving any paradox, is Zhuangzi's Dream. Zhuangzi, the ancient Chinese philosopher, once had a vivid dream in which he was a butterfly, fluttering happily here and there. Suddenly he woke up, but afterward was never certain whether he was a man who once dreamt he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man.

I wonder if I'm living in a world of my own creation?

I have always admired truly selfless people and been disappointed in myself that I could not better emulate them. I sincerely admire that trait in people when I come across it. I had a friend once tell me that I was the most selfish person they knew. That comment stung, until they qualified it by saying that I was also the most generous person they ever known. Her logic was that by making sure I was taking care of myself first, I was in more of a position to give to others. But that's not true selflessness. I have known people who have had nothing, give more than I, who have everything, have ever given. It's very humbling.

During my Air Force years, each and every time I was to be given an award, I always chose to pick it up from the administrative office ahead of time to avoid the fanfare of a public display. This is not to say that I shun crowds - I can perform impromptu public speaking without a second thought; those types of things do not bother me. It's the personal attention I don't care for. I wouldn't say it makes me uncomfortable as I really don't have any adverse reactions to it, I just prefer to do without it.

During the meeting I supported this past week in D.C. I was part of a small support staff to assist 600 people. I felt personally responsible for every one of them, and made myself available to ensure their well-being. I don't know why. One person alone cannot do it, but I tried. For five full days I worked myself ragged attending to the needs of people I did not know - and I never let them see anything except a smile on my face. It was tiring, but wholly rewarding. I felt drawn to serve these people the best I could.

In researching altruism on wikipedia, I came across this snippet:

In common parlance, altruism usually means helping another person without expecting material reward from that or other persons, although it may well entail the "internal" benefit of a "good feeling," sense of satisfaction, self-esteem, fulfillment of duty (whether imposed by a religion or ideology or simply one's conscience), or the like. In this way one need not speculate on the motives of the altruist in question.

This leads me to believe perhaps I'm not anywhere near skirting altruism, as I was there fulfilling a functional role as part of my job. As the IS Manager, my duties were limited to those issues which required interaction within the scope of things IT/IS related. But I didn't do just that. I did everything. Perhaps because it was my job, and I am who I am, I just refused to do anything except my best. Doing the best you can at a task you've been given isn't selflessness, and in fact could be I suppose, considered selfish. Knowing word would get back to my chain of command in hopes of retaining my position or gaining materialistically from it. But I don't think so. I found that I enjoyed giving more than was expected of me. It was fulfilling, and I feel that I've only gotten to where I am today by always having this attitude.