Ignoring what’s right in front of you

23 Sep 2023 | Confirmation bias

The first step in overcoming confirmation bias is to check the facts, even if you’re tempted to take them at face value. But doing so is not always straightforward. My TED talk opened with how Belle Gibson claimed to have beaten cancer through diet. Since Belle’s medical records are private, the person on the street can’t easily check this claim

But sometimes confirmation bias is so strong that it kicks in even if the facts are staring you in the face, and no checking is necessary. In 2018 I came across a paper by Harvard professor Mark Roe arguing that the business world is far less short-termist than people think. A big chunk of my research is on the dangers of short-termism and how to cure it — so I was tempted to either ignore the paper or read it with the mindset of trying to pick it apart. But one of the downsides of giving a talk on confirmation bias is that it forces me to practice what I preach. Reluctantly, I read it as open-mindedly as I could — and realised that many of Roe’s arguments were well-founded.

I feared that this bias might not be unique to me. To test this, I posted the following on Twitter:

The graph was taken from Roe’s paper, and is one of his key pieces of evidence that short-termism is not a problem — research and development (R&D) spending has risen over the last 40 years, as a percentage of GDP. But my Tweet claimed the exact opposite — that there had been a ‘huge fall in R&D since 1977’ and that this was ‘smoking gun evidence of short-termism.’

While I provided a link to the paper, you didn’t even need to click on it to see that my quote was false. The graph showed, clear as day, that the line was going up. But many people retweeted and liked my post, probably because they also believed capitalism to be short-termist and latched onto anyone claiming this, even though my claim was clearly false. Here’s one of the retweets:

My post never mentioned ‘maximising share value’, ‘increased executive pay’, ‘long-term productivity loss’ or ‘increased inequality’, and the graph showed a rise in investment which is good for productivity. Confirmation bias causes you to see whatever you want to see — even if both words and pictures show something completely different.

Inside the Ivory Tower

Inside the Ivory Tower

In May Contain Lies, I highlight the value of academic research. While it's far from perfect, it can be more reliable than practitioner studies for a number of reasons: Its goal is scientific inquiry, rather than advocacy of a pre-existing position or releasing findings to improve a company's image. It's conducted by those with expertise in conducting scientific research. Papers published in top scientific journals are peer-reviewed, which helpsimprove their accuracy. However, authors, journalists, and practitioners will sometimes cite research as if it bears the hallmark ...
Does only 2% of VC funding go to female founders?

Does only 2% of VC funding go to female founders?

A widely quoted statistic is that only 2% of VC funding goes to female founders. For example, this Forbes article highlights that "only 2% of all VC funding goes to women-led startups" and asks "Why is only 2% of VC funding going to female founders"? If true, this statistic is substantial underrepresentation and needs to be urgently addressed. However, it's problematic for several reasons. 1. The Statistic Ignores Diverse Teams The 2% statistic actually refers to companies founded solely by women. It ignores diverse companies founded by both men and women. This is strange, because ...
An unhealthy obsession with organisational health

An unhealthy obsession with organisational health

Two leading asset management firms drew my attention to the McKinsey Organizational Health Index as a potential tool to evaluate a company. A book, "Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change", written by two McKinsey partners, claimed that companies with high scores on this Index trounced their unhealthy peers along a range of performance measures. For example, their shareholder returns were three times as high. But as I wrote in an earlier post, rather than being more impressed by big numbers, we should be more sceptical. If it were really possible to ...