Y Safle

Confirmation Bias is a mistake people make when thinking. Our natural penchant is to listen to people we agree with and not challenge our own assumptions. The result is sloppy thinking, but it allows us to feel good about our prejudices.

Caredig i Natur’s blog demonstrates this bias when they posted up a comment yesterday in the thread they claime dto have closed last week because “everything has already been said on the issue”[sic]

I used quote marks there, but actually what CIn actually said (after making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims) was:

Since this debate is about one particular aspect and everything has probably been said on it already we’ll call a halt to further posts from anyone unless they genuinely add something new

So it was with surprise that I saw that yesterday they approved this message:

RedFfred said…

I’ve come across this – you round a bend, bushes block the view a bit, slow down – and still nearly hit someone. I’ve see nthe kids walking there too, had a near miss once. The answer’s simple – the schools should walk children on PAVEMENT, that’s what it’s for, and the council should make it bicycle-only, and make that clear.

So what is the new information in this message that allows this commentator to comment when all comments were rejected pointing out that, in fact, the children already *were* walking on the PAVEMENT?

Obviously no NEW information. Instead, the blogger allows the pro comment with incorrect data through because it confirms his own bias, whilst he filters out and rejects all those messages that point out that the children in question were walking on a designated pedestrian footway.

So to RedFfred we say: we agree, the children should be left alone to walk on the pavement and cyclists need to think a lot harder about how they present their arguments and who they attack.

Be Sociable, Share!

•