Recent discussion, as well as some themes of the past, illustrate strong examples of these two quite strong, pervasive and interrelated biases.
In a nutshell confirmation bias occurs when one has a fixed mental framework or model as to how things are -- and unconsciously select observations and examples (data) in our lives that support the "hypothesis" -- the ingrained mental framework. And a tendency to neglect or discount contrary data. On a research level, the common problems cited for TMO research are parallel: finding extraordinary significance in data that supports the current claim, and disregarding data that counters it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias "In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs." Diagnosis bias is sort of "first impressions" rule -- and remain fixed, hard to change. More broadly, it may not be the "first" impression, but that once a working model is established in our minds, that model tends to stay fixed, more than a stake in the ground -- rather a cornerstone, of our views. The bias is that we are reluctant to change our original diagnosis. Unexamined assumptions -- irrespective of the cautions of the FFL masthead -- often rule our lives. The latter bias feeds into the former. We often have old, unexamined assumptions, which then unconsciously guide our selection of life observations and experiences -- endorsing those that fit the unexamined assumptions -- strengthening them, and unconsciously ignoring other pertinent data. Tie this to several points in the quite insightful IMO article I posted yesterday from the NYT: 1) Over time remember things as true even when we knew the information was from a shaky or false source when we took it in. 2) Memories, including, and especially the "false" ones, are enhanced and perhaps cemented in when strong emotions are involved. Examples in the TMO abound -- for example, pertinent to the SBS discussion, almost all discussion of SBS in the TMO is in a highly charged emotional framework. Nothing was more dear to TTC audiences that to have MMY talk about Guru Dev. These four factors (two biases and two memory characteristics) it would appear could make powerful indoctrination tools to shape and reinforce world views and values. "Cults" in a broad sense of the term, groups that have strong indoctrination imprints on their members -- which could including ones university, the army, ones professional organizations, political parties, as well as spiritual organizations, etc -- indeed, do appear to use such, perhaps unconsciously, to shape their members world views and values. An independent of organizational shaping, just by ourselves, in our lives, we can get in to quite deep ruts, due to the interplay of these four factors. "Liberation", freedom from the binding influence of deep conditioning, memories and past events would seem to be a great antidote to these four factors. However, what I observe in the TMO, FFL, and other spiritual groups (sometimes second hand) is that confirmation and diagnostic biases, an false memory imprinting, appear as vibrant and lively as in other organizations and spheres of life. Why is that the case? As mentioned above, it would seem that liberation technologies and practices, which root out the deepest of the binding influence of memory, and the stuck in deep goo patterns of congnative biases, should, in my view, reduce such. It leads to two primary evaluations (there are more I am sure, though they do not readily come to mind): i) not all, perhaps not many "liberation" practices actually do root out deep samskaras even after decades of practice, or, ii) even smaskara free ones are still quite susceptible to false memory imprint, being bound to weak, false or fuzzy unexamined assumptions at the core of their world views, and the tendency to unconsciously and selectively accept data that supports those models an rejecting data that does not. Many claiming liberation don't appear immune to this. OTOH, some not explicitly claiming anything, do IME, have a quite reference-free, clean slate, fresh way of looking things. SSRS an Dali Lama come to mind for various reasons and observations (possibly unconsciously selectively chosen). Appreciative of any and all insights on this, I would be particularly interested in those with experience with cult issues, and/or things like NLP.
