Validating feelings Adult cam from taiwan
The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory.When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (ibid.).It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position.Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: Successes are often unambiguous or data are easily massaged to count as successes, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant.
(Since 'being in the right place at the right time' is so ambiguous I won't bother to ask about those who were in the right place at the right time but didn't recognized it and failed.) There have been many studies claiming, or implying by their narrative, that a causal connection exists only because they found x followed y.
What about the many cases where intuition was wrong?
What about the many cases where success came to people who put in hardly any work or where failure came to people who put in their 10,000 hours?
Of course, using vague terms as keys to validating a theory makes child's play of confirming one's biases.
Phrenology used terms such as 'benevolence' and 'self-esteem,' whereas eugenics used terms such as 'feebleminded,' 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'imbecile,' 'inferior blood,' 'defective strains,' and 'unfit.' Such terms gave defenders of eugenics--the sterilization of those deemed 'unfit' and the encouragement of breeding among those deemed 'fit' or 'superior'--a blank check to designate whomever fit their idea of worthy or unworthy of breeding as evidence of the rightness of their beliefs. Confirmation bias seems especially pernicious when it comes to causal studies.
Astrology is just one example of a belief system easy to confirm with data.