United We Stand
Advocates for family preservation against unwarranted intervention by government funded non profit agencies and is a growing union for families and other advocates speaking out against the children's aid society's funding strategies and current corrupt practices to achieve the society's funding goals.
Subjective testing, confirmation bias and the innocent being judged on a prima facie basis? Sounds like a child protection investigation.. Are all the society's tests and assessments for parenting any less subjective or reliable?
The brain's job is to make sense of the world, and it does so — easily, rapidly and generally accurately — by finding connections between things.
Driving High: Is the test for weed reliable? - The Fifth Estate.
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
Although not a formal logical fallacy, confirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs.It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence that might refute that pre-existing conclusion.
Technically, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias, which seeks data that confirm the hypothesis under study.
Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism. The scientific method, itself, was developed to remove biases. In science, it is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (see falsifiability).
Anti-vaxxer: There is an article by Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones that states that confirms that Andrew Wakefield was right about vaccines and autism.
Pro-science/pro-vaxxer: But there are hundreds of articles from research across the world published in respected journals that say autism is absolutely unrelated to vaccines.
Anti-vaxxer: Not relevant, only the article by Smith and Jones is useful.
What do you think, does the CAS display signs of "myside" bias?
Signs confirmation bias is becoming a problem.
Posted on September 26, 2011.
As a reminder confirmation bias is the tendency to like or seek out information that confirms what you believe. The reason confirmation bias is so dangerous in trading is that it can cause you to lose twice. By the time price or loss has proven your belief as wrong, it may force your belief into the other direction.
The Trap of Confirmation Bias.
Thomas Gilovich, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, is the author, with Lee Ross, of "The Wisest One in the Room: How You Can Benefit from Social Psychology's Most Powerful Insights."
UPDATED DECEMBER 22, 2015, 3:21 AM
To say “Jody is a Libra” is to state an implicit hypothesis that Jody has the traits of a Libra. The mind will then automatically examine that hypothesis by looking for evidence that it’s true — by finding links between the characteristics of Jody and the traits thought to characterize Libras. Again, because there is a lot that can be said about both Jody and Libras, overlapping characteristics are rarely hard to find.
Sometimes, of course, people actively want to believe astrological claims and therefore look extra hard to find these links. In those cases, the confirmation bias is especially pronounced.
But this bias rears its head even when a person has no motivational stake in whether astrology is valid or not. Suppose someone gives you some primroses for your garden and says, “I think they need a lot of watering, but you should test that out.” How would you do so? Chances are you would water them a lot and see how they do. What you probably wouldn’t do is give half of them a lot of water and the other half much less in order to examine evidence both consistent and inconsistent with the hypothesis.
Critical thinking is all about conducting these more balanced inquiries. Without them, we believe in all sorts of things that aren’t true.
THEORIES COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
We interpret facts to confirm our beliefs. By Kendra Cherry. Updated May 23, 2018.
Where do your beliefs and opinions come from? If you are like most people, you probably like to think that your beliefs are the result of years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have available. The reality is that all of us are susceptible to a tricky problem known as a confirmation bias.
While we like to imagine that our beliefs are rational, logical, and objective, the fact is that our ideas are often based on paying attention to the information that upholds our ideas. At the same time, we tend to ignore the information that challenges our existing beliefs.
Understanding Confirmation Bias.
A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information which confirms previously existing beliefs or biases.
For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" that supports what they already believe. This individual might even seek "proof" that further backs up this belief while discounting examples that do not support the idea.
Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember things in a way that reinforces these attitudes.
Confirmation Biases in Action
Consider the debate over gun control. Sally, for example, is in support of gun control. She seeks out news stories and opinion pieces that reaffirm the need for limitations on gun ownership. When she hears stories about shootings in the media, she interprets them in a way that supports her existing beliefs.
Henry, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to gun control. He seeks out news sources that are aligned with his position. When he comes across news stories about shootings, he interprets them in a way that supports his current point of view.
These two people have very different opinions on the same subject and their interpretations are based on that. Even if they read the same story, their bias tends to shape the way they perceive it because it confirms their beliefs.
The Impact of Confirmation Biases
In the 1960s, cognitive psychologist Peter Cathcart Wason conducted a number of experiments known as Wason's rule discovery task. He demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively. It can also influence the decisions we make and can lead to poor or faulty choices.
During an election season, for example, people tend to seek positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light. They will also look for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light.
By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, they often miss important information. These details and facts might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support.
Observations by Psychologists
In his book, "Research in Psychology: Methods and Design," C. James Goodwin gives a great example of confirmation bias as it applies to extrasensory perception.
"Persons believing in extrasensory perception (ESP) will keep close track of instances when they were 'thinking about Mom, and then the phone rang and it was her!' Yet they ignore the far more numerous times when (a) they were thinking about Mom and she didn't call and (b) they weren't thinking about Mom and she did call. They also fail to recognize that if they talk to Mom about every two weeks, their frequency of "thinking about Mom" will increase near the end of the two-week-interval, thereby increasing the frequency of a 'hit.'"
As Catherine A. Sanderson points out in her book, "Social Psychology," confirmation bias also helps form and re-confirm stereotypes we have about people.
"We also ignore information that disputes our expectations. We are more likely to remember (and repeat) stereotype-consistent information and to forget or ignore stereotype-inconsistent information, which is one-way stereotypes are maintained even in the face of disconfirming evidence. If you learn that your new Canadian friend hates hockey, loves sailing and that your new Mexican friend hates spicy foods and loves rap music, you are less likely to remember this new stereotype-inconsistent information."
Confirmation bias is not only found in our personal beliefs, it can affect our professional endeavors as well. In the book, "Psychology," Peter O. Gray offers this example of how it may affect a doctor's diagnosis.
"Groopman (2007) points out that the confirmation bias can couple with the availability bias in producing misdiagnosis in a doctor's office. A doctor who had jumped to a particular hypothesis as to what disease a patient has may then ask questions and look for evidence that tends to confirm that diagnosis while overlooking evidence that would tend to disconfirm it. Groopman suggests that medical training should include a course in inductive reasoning that would make new doctors aware of such biases. Awareness, he things, would lead to fewer diagnostic errors. A good diagnostician will test his or her initial hypothesis by searching for evidence against that hypothesis."
A Word From Verywell
Unfortunately, we all have confirmation bias. Even if you believe you are very open-minded and only observe the facts before coming to conclusions, it's very likely that some bias will shape your opinion in the end. It is difficult to combat this natural tendency.
Yet, if we know about confirmation bias and accept the fact that it does exist, we can make attempts to recognize it. That may help us see things from another perspective, though it's never a guarantee.
Tammy Law's delusional thoughts, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for using the Motherisk test to justify denying parents due process and circumventing the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and the principles of fundamental Justice behind the closed doors of Ontario's family courts.
Posted on February 27, 2018 by tammylaw
After 2 years, and the review of more than 1200 cases, the Motherisk Commission came out with its report yesterday. The Report is required reading for everyone who has any role to play in child welfare – social workers, lawyers, courts, litigants. It describes a system that is dysfunctional, unfair, and undignified. In addition to its criticism of how CASs have handled drug addiction, the Commission details years of rights infringements by courts.
If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry.
I want to be clear about what I think some of the fundamental problems are and how I think we can start to change this system. Because I am first and foremost a lawyer, my thoughts naturally focus on the role of lawyers in this mess. My thoughts are summarized as follows:
As lawyers, we need to recognize that good intentions are not enough. It is really easy to hide behind “the best interests of the child” and agree or acquiesce to all types of infringements of our clients’ basic human and Charter rights. This needs to stop. Lawyers need to start seeing their role in the context of defending our clients’ very real rights to human dignity and security of the person.
The culture of cooperation has gone too far. While I agree that it is very very important to work with the Children’s Aid Society to address their concerns, a line must be drawn when they demand cooperation that crosses the line. As a state agent, the Society has an obligation to ensure that it works in the most minimally intrusive way possible – respecting the client’s right to individual freedom while trying to ensure that its clients are served. This is a difficult job. Lawyers and courts should be there to ensure that the fine line is respected.
Society counsel need to understand that they have a public interest role. They should be providing advice to their clients in the context of being a public interest litigant. They have a duty to the court to be fair. This means that if unreliable evidence is being tendered (and there were many signs of this with respect to the Motherisk testing), they should be advising their clients about the unfairness of relying on it. Lawyers are and should be gatekeepers of evidence as much as courts are.
We need to be more vigilant. As noted in the report, our role as advocates is to raise every defence possible for our clients.
(HOW PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERS SWORN AFFIDAVITS WHEN CLIENTS HAVE IT)
Our clients are often extremely vulnerable, having lived lives that were challenged by multiple obstacles. Many have made admirable attempts to parent their children. We need to be fearless in our advocacy for them. As a lawyer, I have experienced and seen derisive, sarcastic, or rude comments directed at myself and other lawyers who attempt to defend their clients. This needs to stop. It’s our client’s right – their children’s right – that they have a full defence.
Corruption is like a fire, if you don't stamp it all out it just starts all over again somewhere else...
ACTIONS DON'T ALWAYS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. SOMETIMES IT'S A REASON FOR SUSPICION.
Nancy Simone, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees local representing 275 workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, argues child protection workers already have levels of oversight that include workplace supervisors, family court judges, coroners’ inquests and annual case audits by the ministry and the union representing child protection workers is firmly opposed to ethical oversight from a professional college, and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of the fight.. Nancy Simone says, “Our work is already regulated to death.”
Civilized Oppression and Moral Relations: Victims, Fallibility, and the Moral Community.
In Civilized Oppression J.Harvey forcefully argues for the crucial role of morally distorted relationships in such oppression. While uncovering a set of underlying moral principles that account for the immorality of civilized oppression, Harvey's analyses provide frameworks for identifying morally problematic situations and relationships, criteria for evaluating them, and guidelines for appropriate responses. This book will be essential for both graduates and undergraduates in ethics, social theory, theory of justice, and feminist and race studies.
This book discusses how civilized oppression (the oppression that involves neither violence nor the law) can be overcome by re-examining our participation in it. Moral community, solidarity and education are offered as vibrant strategies to overcome the hurt and marginalization that stem from civilized oppression.
Former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian wrote:
“I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.”
The only oversight for the province’s children’s aid agencies comes from Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services.
"As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Wynne's liberals are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making decisions and the clients can not request files/disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act nor can censored information reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario or the federal counter-part."
In her 2004 annual report, which was released on June 22, 2005, the Commissioner called for amendments that would bring virtually all organizations that are primarily funded by government dollars under FOI for the purposes of transparency and accountability: This would include the various children’s aid agencies in the Province of Ontario. Many parents and families complain about how difficult it is, if not impossible, to obtain information from children’s aid agencies. Many citizens complain that CAS agencies appear to operate under a veil of secrecy. Unlicensed and untrained CAS workers are making decisions which are literally destroying families, yet there is little or no accountability for their actions short of a lawsuit long after the damage is done, if ever. The vast majority of CAS victims can't afford lawyers.
“Hundreds of organizations that are recipients of large transfer payments from the government are not subject to the provincial or municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts,” said the Commissioner, “which means they are not subject to public scrutiny.” Among the examples she cites are hospitals and Children’s Aid Societies. “Openness and transparency of all publicly funded bodies is essential – they should be publicly accountable.”
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12:
In my 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports I recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA. I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STANDARDS, OR LEGISLATION, OR THE BUREAUCRACY - IT'S ABOUT ETHICS AND APPLICATION AND WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. IF YOUR GOING TO FIX WHAT'S WRONG WITH CHILD PROTECTION - START AT THE BEGINNING.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT LACKS ETHICS, MORALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OR ACTS IN BAD FAITH - IT'S THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED TO OVERSEE THE SYSTEM THAT LACK THOSE THINGS.
IT'S NOT A BAD SYSTEM THAT MAKES GOOD WORKERS BAD - IT'S BAD WORKERS THAT MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, BAD.