think this is why many did not see the RE market was going to tumble
I am a numbers geek, I gather data by the GIGABITE, some manually done, some robotic, some gathered by a service
I have learned to stop trying to use the data to confirm my intent or train of thought and to "think" about the data
as RE Pro's we tend to look for what we want to see, that will cause you to follow a trend too long or not long enough
The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data before much speculation as to their significance. DO you speculate , are you looking for sales trends, or confirming what you already think?
I have posted some references here
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition, 1989), empiric is derived from the ancient Greek for experience, έμπειρία, which is ultimately derived from έυ in + πεἳρα trial, experiment. Therefore, empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience. In this way, the empirical method is similar to the experimental method. However, an essential difference is that in an experiment the different "trials" are strictly manipulated so that an inference can be made as to causation of the observed change that results. This contrasts with the empirical method of aggregating naturally occurring data.Adding further confusion is another connotation of empiric. Strict empiricists are those who derive their rules of practice entirely from experience, to the exclusion of philosophical theory.
The OED further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method. This is counter to one of the main tenets of the scientific method, that of the hypothetico-deductive method, where the manipulation of the variable in an experiment is dictated by the hypothesis being tested.
Conformation BiasOverview
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 avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is an area of interest in the teaching of critical thinking as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting the same preconception.[1]
Among the first to investigate this phenomenon was Peter Cathcart Wason (1960), whose subjects were presented with three numbers (a triple):
and told that triple conforms to a particular rule. They were then asked to discover the rule by generating their own triples and use the feedback they received from the experimenter. Every time the subject generated a triple, the experimenter would indicate whether the triple conformed to the rule (right) or not (wrong). The subjects were told that once they were sure of the correctness of their hypothesized rule, they should announce the rule.
While the actual rule was simply "any ascending sequence", the subjects seemed to have a great deal of difficulty in inducing it, often announcing rules that were far more complex than the correct rule. More interestingly, the subjects seemed to only test "positive" examples, triples that subjects believed would conform to their rule and thus confirm their hypothesis. What the subjects did not do was attempt to falsify their hypotheses by testing triples that they believed would not conform to their rule. Wason referred to this phenomenon as the confirmation bias, whereby subjects systematically seek evidence to confirm rather than to deny their hypotheses.
The confirmation bias was Wason's original explanation for the systematic errors made by subjects in the Wason selection task. In essence, the subjects were only choosing to examine cards that could confirm the given rule rather than disconfirm it. Confirmation bias has been used as a theory for why people believe and maintain pseudoscientific ideas.
Reasons for effect
There are several possible reasons beliefs persevere despite contrary evidence. Embarrassment over having to withdraw a publicly declared belief, for example, or stubbornness or hope. Superstition, religion, worldview or ideology can allow a believer to give a greater weight to some data over other data.
One explanation may lie in the workings of the human sensory system. Human brains and senses are organised in such a manner so as to facilitate rapid evaluation of social situations and others' states of mind. Studies have shown that this behaviour is evident in the choosing of friends and partners [6] and houses,[7] even though it is largely subconscious. Although it can be a very fast process[8], the initial impression has a lasting effect as a byproduct of the brain's tendency to fill in the gaps of what it perceives and the unwillingness of the believer to admit a mistake.
[edit] Polarization effect
Polarization occurs when mixed or neutral evidence is used to bolster an already established and clearly biased point of view. As a result, people on both sides can move farther apart, or polarize, when they are presented with the same mixed evidence.
In 1979, Lord, Ross and Lepper conducted an experiment to explore what would happen if they presented subjects harboring divergent opinions with the same body of mixed evidence. They hypothesized that each opposing group would use the same pieces of evidence to further support their opinions. The subjects chosen were 24 proponents and 24 opponents of the death penalty. They were given an article about the effectiveness of capital punishment and were asked to evaluate it. Then, the subjects were given detailed research descriptions of the study they had just read, but this time it included procedure, results, prominent criticisms and results shown in a table or graph. They were then asked to evaluate the study, stating how well it was conducted and how convincing the evidence was overall.
The results were congruous with the hypothesis. Students found that studies which supported their pre-existing view were superior to those which contradicted it, in a number of detailed and specific ways. In fact, the studies all described the same experimental procedure but with only the purported result changed.[9]
Overall, there was a visible increase of attitude polarization. Initial analysis of the experiment shows that proponents and opponents confessed to shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read, but, once subjects read the more detailed study, they returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to the details that support their viewpoint and disregarding anything that was contrary.
It is not accurate to say that the subjects were trying to view the evidence in a biased manner, but, since the subjects already had such strong opinions about capital punishment their reading of the evidence was colored towards their point of view. Looking at the same piece of evidence, an opponent and proponent would each argue that it supports their own cause, thus pushing their contrary opinions even further into their opposing corners.
Polarization can occur in conjunction with other assimilation biases such as illusory correlation, selective exposure or the primary effects. The normative model for this bias is the neutral evidence principle. Interestingly, a formulated belief can prevail even if the evidence that was used in the initial formation of that belief is entirely negated. [10]
;)
;)
