I like to think of myself as a very grounded, pragmatic person open to possibilities. I like evidence and supporting research that is non-biased. I used to think that double blind studies were the way to go because they seemed so objective – now I find that these, too, can be tainted and unreliable. I also like to try things out myself to get a more personal testimony of a process’ efficacy – if it works well on me, I’ll endorse it.

I have come to realize that scientific knowledge is not the same thing as understanding the scientific method. In the scientific method, one observes a phenomenon, like RET, for example; then applies a possible theoretical hypothesis to that observation; tests the hypothesis in such a manner as to prove or disprove the hypothesis – making both results (proof or disproof) possible and viable; and then reevaluates in light of this new evidence.

The theoretical hypothesis is meant to be a notion – one that can be dismissed easily upon evidence to the contrary – weighing the evidence pro and con, choosing the most logical and reasonable explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Testing must be as objective as possible and reproducible by others – making the testing process free from flukes and biases. Finally, analysis of the results of testing and reevaluation of the initial hypothesis must be done solely in light of the data extracted from objective testing – open equally to proof or disproof – free of political, social, economic, or other outside influences.

Then comes the rub – the “Confirmation Bias”. The confirmation bias is defined as “sorting a body of data and selecting those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignoring or rationalizing away those that do not.”

Our confirmation biases are based on teachings from our past – especially from our early childhood – from our earliest authorities – our parents! And where did they get their biases? Most likely from the same place you got yours – from their parents! This is how we instill and sustain our traditions, our superstitions, and our basic personal preferences – from our ancestors. Even when we are trained to do otherwise, we tend to fall back on our “DNA” – our family patterns of belief. It’s even built into our physiology – our basic brain structure – and down into every cell.

Especially when it comes to issues relating to survival, we tend to confirm what we already believe and disregard or rationalize away the rest – our underlying subconscious belief being that our survival depends on keeping the status quo rather than releasing the old to investigate or consider something new and possibly better. Further, we will defend with our very lives our old “principles” based on those biases.

We tend to seek to prove to ourselves what we already believe rather than being truly open to surprise – no matter how pleasant the surprise may be. Further, we tend to taint our experiences to fit our biased world view. We simply cannot be truly objective. As humans, we carry within us the human trait of bias – and that bias is subconscious, deeply held, and strongly defended personally, culturally, and globally as a specie. We taint every aspect of our lives with our own biases – it’s natural and normal.

So, what do we do when we encounter a deeply held bias that seems to be destructive or, in some cases, fatal? Is there a way to beat the confirmation bias?

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple and effective technology available now. Rapid Eye Technology (RET) addresses this basic human issue in a process called “scrambling” designed specifically for dealing with these deeply held biases – opening our biases, scrambling them like scrambled eggs, and then releasing them – leaving the client free to investigate and objectively reevaluate their life experience based on evidence untainted by their own confirmation bias. Once the basic belief is released, there is no bias to confirm. When done thoroughly, the RET process can free the mind from old beliefs based on traditions and biases rather than on real data and evidence.

I feel very excited about the possibility of releasing my own confirmation biases in favor of openness and true scientific thought – the ability to actually observe, theorize/hypothesize, test, and reevaluate with a much more open mind – open to the possibility of being wrong in my theory and being okay with that – open to new and much more exciting possibilities previously considered impossible, or not considered at all.

Food for thought.

-JB