Confirmation bias - Why democrats ignore the facts!

confirmation bias, also called my side bias, is a tendency for democrats to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or ideas regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, democrats gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, democrats usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. As a former democrat I saw this constantly and still see it today whenever I attempt to discuss the real world with democrats!

Biased search, analysis and/or recall have been used to explain democratic attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when democrats beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational predominance effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an uninformed series) and illusory correlation (in which democrats falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). If you doubt this then try to change a democrats mind in an area presented by the leadership of the democratic party or any idea they perceive as basic to their beliefs. Democrats have used these techniques for years and foolish conservatives apparently don't know how to deal with this!

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that some people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity of democrats to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are foolishly assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to the overconfidence in personal beliefs of democrats and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, social and political contexts. Confirmation biases are effects in information processing, also called "self-fulfilling prophecy", in which democrats behave so as to make their expectations come true. Some psychologists use "confirmation bias" to refer to any way in which foolish people avoid rejecting a belief, whether in searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.

Confirmation bias has been described as an internal "yes man" for fools, echoing back a democrat's beliefs like Charles Dickens' character Uriah Heep. Experiments have repeatedly found that some people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with the hypothesis they hold at a given time. Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they ask questions that are phrased so that an affirmative answer supports their hypothesis. They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if it were false. For example, someone who is trying to identify a number using yes/no questions and suspects that the number is 3 might ask, "Is it an odd number?" People prefer this sort of question, called a "positive test", even when a negative test such as "Is it an even number?" would yield exactly the same information. However, this does not mean that people seek tests that are guaranteed to give a positive answer. In studies where subjects could select either such pseudo-tests or genuinely diagnostic ones, they favored the genuinely diagnostic. However, for some demonic reason, democrats refuse to use diagnostic tests and constantly select pseudo-tests.

However, in conjunction with other effects, this strategy can confirm existing beliefs or assumptions, independently of whether they are true. In real-world situations, evidence is often complex and mixed. For example, various contradictory ideas about someone could each be supported by concentrating on one aspect of his or her behavior. Thus any search for evidence in favor of a hypothesis is likely to succeed. One illustration of this is the way the phrasing of a question can significantly change the answer. For example, people who are asked, "Are you happy with your social life?" report greater satisfaction than those asked, "Are you unhappy with your social life?" Liberals always debate this way and throw a "straw man" into the mix at every opportunity.

Even a small change in the wording of a question can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case. Subjects read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods. When asked, "Which parent should have custody of the child?" the subjects looked for positive attributes and a majority chose Parent B. However, when the question was, "Which parent should be denied custody of the child?" they looked for negative attributes, but again a majority answered Parent B, implying that Parent A should have custody.

Another experiment gave subjects a particularly complex rule-discovery task involving moving objects simulated by a computer. Objects on the computer screen followed specific laws, which the subjects had to figure out. They could "fire" objects across the screen to test their hypotheses. Despite making many attempts over a ten hour session, none of the subjects worked out the rules of the system. They typically sought to confirm rather than falsify their hypotheses, and were reluctant to consider alternatives. Even after seeing evidence that objectively refuted their working hypotheses, they frequently continued doing the same tests. Some of the subjects were instructed in proper hypothesis-testing, but these instructions had almost no effect.

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."—Michael Shermer. Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased. A team at Stanford University ran an experiment with subjects who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against. Each of these subjects read descriptions of two studies; a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the subjects were asked whether their opinions had changed. They then read a much more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate how well-conducted and convincing that research was. In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the subjects were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other subjects the conclusions were swapped.

The subjects, whether proponents or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Subjects described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways. Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, "The research didn't cover a long enough period of time", while an opponent's comment on the same study said, "No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented". The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as "disconfirmation bias", has been supported by other experiments.

An MRI scanner allowed researchers to examine how the human brain deals with unwelcome information. A study of biased interpretation took place during the 2004 US presidential election, and involved subjects who described themselves as having strong feelings about the candidates. They were shown apparently contradictory pairs of statements, either from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry or a politically neutral public figure. They were also given further statements that made the apparent contradiction seem reasonable. From these three pieces of information, they had to decide whether or not each individual's statements were inconsistent. There were strong differences in these evaluations, with subjects much more likely to interpret statements by the candidate they opposed as contradictory. This proves that a democrat will vote for a yellow dog if it is labeled a democratic candidate.

Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, subjects were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character's guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.

Even if a liberal democrat has sought and interpreted evidence in a neutral manner, they may still remember it selectively to reinforce their expectations. This effect is called "selective recall", "confirmatory memory" or "access-biased memory". Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled. Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out more and so is more memorable.

Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright. In one study, subjects read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors. They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group was told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the "librarian" group recalling more examples of introversion and the "sales" groups recalling more extraverted behavior. A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types. In one of these, a group of subjects were shown evidence that extraverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group was told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated, study, they were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extraverted. Each group of subjects provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly.

Therefore, whenever you debate issues with a strong believer of liberal democratic policies you must keep confirmation bias in your mind at all times. Even as a former true believer I still forget to remember this tendency by all democrats. It is always there when they discuss issues and the result will always be the same one-sided logic. Debate with a liberal is useless. They must have an epiphany as I did many years ago or they will not change their views. Confirmation bias is alive and well in the democrats mind and will allow them to remain constant in their foolish beliefs.

Activist Conservative Independents

All the activist conservative independents should attempt everything that they can do to promote conservative congressional candidates for the 2012 election. When talking to possible candidates for the 2012 election we need to suggest that they attend the Leadership Institutes Future Candidate School to gain instructions on how to run a successful congressional campaign. I usually do not promote many groups but in this case I will definitely do all I can. These future candidates can easily register on line at http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ and learn the skills that they will need to become successful candidates! It would also be a very important aid to conservatives who desire to become activists in their local community.

Leadership Institute’s unique Future Candidate School trains potential candidates howto run for office successfully and build a grassroots base. The training focuses on each individuals personal and political preparation for a future career in elected office.

The nation’s top campaign experts and political veterans show you how to prepare yourself for a successful candidacy. You will learn how to: * Communicate persuasively * Develop a campaign strategy *Build a strong base of grassroots support * Raise funds *Etc.

Liberals have studied these skills and have them memorized and understand when and where to use these skills effectively. In order to become a successful conservative candidate the individual must have the proper background that will prepare them to enter the political arena.

" We filled legal pads with notes and
carted away volumes of hand-out’s and
PowerPoint presentations. We departed
LI’s Future Candidate School knowing
that we had made the most valuable
‘pit stop’ on our political road trip."

Bill Taylor
Elected 2010 State Representative
South Carolina


Training groups since 1979, the Leadership Institute has trained more than 94,000 students. Graduates include US Senators and Congressmen, governors and state legislators, city council members and local mayors, and conservative activists and officeholders at every level.

The Learning Institute offers 40 types of training programs at the Steven P.J. Wood Building in Arlington, Virginia and in other locations around the country. To bring Institute training to your hometown, request a training session. There are also online courses that many conservatives have been trained by and are now active in their own cities..

March Calendar
05 Future Candidate School Arlington, VA
07 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
16 Television Workshop, Introduction to Techniques Arlington, VA
16 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
19 Public Relations School Arlington, VA
24 Youth Leadership School Denver, CO
30 Public Speaking Workshop Arlington, VA
31 Campaign Management School 1 & 2Newark, OH
April Calendar
02 Campaign Management School Arlington, VA
04 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
04 Political Voter Mail Workshop Arlington, VA
16 Public Relations School, Advanced Arlington, VA
24 High-Dollar Fundraising School Arlington, VA
24 Online Fundraising Workshop Arlington, VA
27 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
May Calendar
02 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
05 Travel-Grassroots Activist School Omaha, NE
07 Future Candidate School Arlington, VA
14 Direct Mail School Arlington, WA
15 Direct Mail School, Advanced Arlington, VA
18 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
June Calendar
01 Television Workshop, Introduction to Techniques Arlington, VA
01 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
04 Campaign Management School Arlington, VA
06 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
06 Advanced New Media Workshop: Campaigns Arlington, VA
25 Public Relations School Arlington, VA
July Calendar
16 Public Relations School, Advanced Arlington, VA
19 New Media Workshop Arlington, VA
19 Blogging Workshop Arlington, VA
20 Public Speaking Workshop Arlington, VA
23 Written Communications Workshop Arlington, VA
August Calendar
01 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
03 Broadcast Journalism School Arlington, VA
06 Future Candidate School Arlington, VA
10 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA

September Calendar
04 Campaign Management School Arlington, VA
05 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
14 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
17 High-Dollar Fundraising School Arlington, VA
17 Online Fundraising Workshop Arlington, VA
21 Public Speaking Workshop Arlington, VA
24 Public Relations School Arlington, VA
October Calendar
01 Campaign Management School Arlington, VA
03 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
03 Advanced New Media Workshop: Campaigns Arlington, VA
03 Campaign Basics Newport News, VA
12 Television Workshop, Introduction to Techniques Arlington, VA
12 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
15 Public Relations School, Advanced Arlington, VA
November Calendar
09 Public Speaking Workshop Arlington, VA
27 Conservative Career Workshop Arlington, VA
29 Advanced New Media Workshop: Online Activism Arlington, VA
30 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
December Calendar
03 Future Candidate School Arlington, VA
05 Wednesday Wakeup Club Breakfast Arlington, VA
14 Television Workshop, Introduction to Techniques Arlington, VA
14 Television Workshop, On-camera Arlington, VA
January Calendar
04 University of California-Irvine - Student Publications School -

Online Training
Activism On Demand - Online Training

Request School Training by Subject
Campaigns and Political Activism
Campus Leadership Program
Career Development
Fundraising
Online Activism and Strategy
Public Relations
Public Speaking
Television Broadcast

OWS and Judaism - the march towards communism

Historically, anti-capitalist passion has been interlaced with anti-Semitism. Some Occupy Wall Street protesters stand in line with hateful prototypes. Anti-capitalist political revolutions of modern times have provided platforms for anti-Semitic outbreaks.

The anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street protesters of 2011 and 2012 are proving to be no exception to the historic combination of dangerous anti-capitalist and anti-Jewish sentiment, as many recent videos demonstrate. As of this date, there has been no condemnation of the noticeably anti-Semitic episodes from within the Occupy Wall Street crowd, from our president or the liberal lamestreet news media. The news media would have you believe that these are stand-up citizens comparable to the Tea Party members.

The tendency among the protesters and some pundits has been to characterize such outbreaks within and outside the OWS movement as merely unreliable, random incidents. However, such episodes are symptomatic of the disease of anti-Semitism passed down from generations of socialist and communist revolutions. The fate of Jews under socialist/communist governments of the twentieth century, a case example being the purge of Polish Jews during the political crisis of 1968, seems to be completely lost on OWS protesters.

But as worrisome as the outbreak of anti-Semitism within OWS is, there is yet another danger to Jews lurking within the OWS movement -- namely, the attempt by a movement calling itself Occupy Judaism to accelerate the assimilation of the overwhelmingly leftist political leanings of the movement within Judaism itself.

The impulse to blend Judaism and leftist politics may well have its roots in the socialist Revolution of 1848, which had a strong anti-banking and anti-capitalist component. While Rabbi Hirsch labored to take advantage of the political crisis in order to emancipate Jews, he resisted the absorption of Judaism into secular political ideals, believing as he did that a sovereign God rules earthly events. He did not foresee what would be the steady erosion of Jewish rabbinical tradition and devotion to the Torah as Judaism became more and more attracted to the ideals of the left -- ideals which would prove to be incompatible with centuries-old Jewish faith, identity, and tradition. The irony is that contemporary attempts to assimilate leftist belief systems within Judaism have eroded traditional Judaism while doing nothing to stop the anti-Semitic tendencies of communist/socialist mobs.

The truth is that if Occupy Judaism and other like movements have their way, an acceleration of the erosion may indeed be in the future. Many American Jews already increasingly lean toward a political fundamentalism almost as strict and rigorous in its demands as any orthodox adherent of Judaism.

Indeed, as Norman Podhoretz has indicated in his Wall street Journal article, "Why Are Jews Liberals," progressivism's leftist principles have become for many American Jews a sort of religion in and of itself. He writes: The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. All these "NEW LIBERAL" Jews need to do is to build statues of "BULLS" and they then will become historically correct.

The dangerous attempt to absorb the Jewish religious tradition and the
radically leftist goals of many OWS protestors appears to be a goal of Occupy Judaism. The group, which has emerged as a movement of those who are dissatisfied with Jewish institutions and synagogues, hopes to change Jewish religious practice from within. The desire is to further radicalize Judaism, some branches of which are already allied with leftist ideals.

As Dana Evan Kaplan notes in her essay "Contemporary debates in American reform Judaism: conflicting visions," Reform Judaism's "approach to tikkun olam [repairing the world] has incorporated only leftist, socialist-like elements. In truth, it is political, basically a mirror of the most radically leftist components of the Democratic Party platform, causing many to say that Reform Judaism is simply 'the Democratic party with Jewish holidays.'"

According to the Jerusalem Post, Occupy Judaism leader Daniel Sieradski apparently feels American Judaism needs to hasten its leftward march while retaining some aspects of Jewish ritual. Mr. Sieradski proclaimed: We chose to erect and occupy our succa here at Zuccotti Park. There is no better place to celebrate the festival of Succot this year than right here at Occupy Wall Street. We stand in solidarity with all those who are challenging the inequitable distribution of resources in our country, who dare to dream of a more just and compassionate society.

Mr. Sieradski also suggested "the possibility of sit-ins and demonstrations in front of synagogues and Jewish organizations." Right. That should work out well. One does not have to be particularly prescient to imagine the chaos and destruction should mobs determined to forcibly reform Judaism according to socialist/Marxist principles get out of hand "Demonstrations" in front of synagogues have been known to turn destructive rather quickly.

Synagogues may suffer the fate of St. Paul's cathedral in London or an
even worse fate. The cathedral has been forced to close its doors due to the siege launched by radical protestors. But more important than the physical occupation of synagogues is the spiritual occupation of a political philosophy which is basically antithetical to Jewish theology. An ideological alliance with the left may wind up with the same results as the Jewish alliances with socialism and communism in the past, with persecution of Jews rising as Jewish capitalists, financiers, and bankers, whose philosophy is influenced by capitalist economic theory and practice, are targeted once again. After all, leftist philosophy is dominated by an economic theory that views the chief levers of the world as economic -- a perfect setup for anti-bank protests flavored by anti-Jew sentiment.

Most importantly and this cannot be overemphasized; leftism, dominated as it is by socialist/communist ideology, is inherently atheistic. The intrinsic spiritual incompatibility of the two philosophies means a divided house of Judaism, as it has for mainline Protestant denominations and much of the Roman Catholic Church, because those churches have been recently infiltrated by radical liberation theology which has at its heart leftist beliefs.

What a tragic irony it would be if Judaism, devoted as it historically has been to the worship of Jehovah and to the Torah, should continue to find itself deep in the process of assimilating a worldview adverse to its very being. Opposing worldviews cannot coexist within Judaism forever. One or the other will win out.

Will synagogues continue to proclaim the Great She•ma, "Hear Ye, O Israel, the Lord our God is One," in all the fullness of its spiritual splendor and significance? Or, while retaining the ritual and symbolism of Judaism, will they actually be proclaiming the equivalent of "Workers of the World, Unite!" as advanced by communists?

Biblical history has repeatedly demonstrated what has happened when Jews act in ways that disappoint GOD! There have been horrific events in the past that every Jew should remember and pay attention to. Like the old saying goes, "think before you act"!

Apparently Jewish liberals do not grasp who will be serfs in the new serfdom and who will be the elites who rule the serfdom. It does not take much thought to understand who will be on this "Who's Who" list!

Apparently Captain Zero understands the power of these types of citizen groups because he has ordered the IRS to gather the names and Social Security numbers of ALL Tea Party members! Guess Captain Zero wants to promote the membership of the Tea Party. My membership was mailed today, what about yours?

Republicans and The Perfect Candidate?

The Republican Party seems to be struggling to find a candidate it can unite around. One barrier may be a mindset that if you are in government you are part of the problem, and if you are not in government, you are part of the solution -- whatever those problems or solutions may be. I am not sure that the problem is government tenure. The main problem in Washington today is that we have a president who basically has no experience doing anything important or relevant. Then he surrounded himself with advisors and staff that are inexperienced as well as being marxists. Then you add in the fact that he wants to "transform America" and you have a recipe for disaster. A "community organizer" is not a good resume for the job of President of the United States!

In 1980, the most conservative Republican in a generation won the election. But why did Reagan win? The number-one reason was because President Carter had mismanaged the government so badly that it affected the economy adversely, and many Democrats were willing to vote against him. Reagan also benefited from the fact that he could explain conservative policies in a way not heard by most Americans before. He had honed his speaking and exposition skills first as an actor, then as the governor of California, and then on a series of radio commentary shows, where he explained conservative principles to his audience. Reagan dominated Carter during their presidential debates and as a result he won.

Conservatives want and need a candidate who can articulate, convince, and encourage the implementation of conservative principles. That takes some experience and understanding. However, we also need a candidate who can implement conservative executive policy and legislative initiatives extremely well. We don't have time for another president who has to come down from an extreme learning curve or needs on-the-job training.

Why can a Conservative win? The number-one reason is because President Obama has mismanaged the government so badly that it has affected the economy adversely, and many Democrats are willing to vote against him. The Tea Party ranks are filled with Democrats who want anyone but Obama.

There are several candidates who can do these things. They can powerfully expound on conservative principles. Plus they have already been a participant in the conservative revolution in the '90s. We need someone who can lead another conservative revolution now! That person is out there! Will we find the perfect candidate? Perhaps but it is late!
Should we wait and have a brokered convention? That, in my opinion, is very dangerous because that does not leave much time for a candidate to setup a winning campaign! It does not mean that it can not be done but it does mean that it will be tough and we should not take that chance!

As a former democrat I can assure you that what you are hearing from the lame street news media is exactly what the liberals want, make it appear that Republicans should wait and have a brokered convention. These liberal minions would have everyone believe that the current batch of Republican candidates are weak and could not defeat Obama.

Does anyone really think that the current candidates would implement cap and trade? Not likely. Plus the climate science is radically different now. Would any of these candidates not attempt to stop "Obamacare"? Probably not. The current group of candidates has a lifetime ACU rating that says that they are all conservatives! Then if you add in their ability to debate Captain Zero you will have a winner.

The sooner we unite around a general election candidate, the better. Several have the ability to beat Obama and hit the ground running on day one, with executive orders and legislation ready to roll. Let's roll with that person. Besides if we elect a strong conservative congress then we will be ready to tackle the damage that Captain Zero and his crew have done. If we wait for the perfect candidate then we will lose! The America that we love will suffer for our indecision, we need to stop Obama! That must be our top priority and stop our search for the perfect candidate!

Which candidate does the conservative political surveys indicate would beat Obama(Captain Zero)? Repeatedly these surveys have shown several candidates have the ability to be the real conservative candidate that could beat Captain Zero! So it appears that conservatives have a choice that would in fact beat Obama. therefore, we need to start converging around one candidate as the perfect candidate! If conservatives remain in this indecision mode the winner will be Captain Zero!


Hat tip to Kevin Tharp of American Thinker