Notice the references to Obama's agenda - Cass
Sunstein and universal healthcare - woven into the explanations. Is the writer showing his own bias or is he trying to induce us to be biased in his direction?

Exactly ! !

Bullsh$t.

Nonsense ! Cognition is a rational and reasoning function of the human mind. Cognitive biases and dissonances are the result of lazy minds and emotional thinking and decision making. This derives from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (otherwise called Brainwashing) techniques. It works on lazy minds that believe this nonsense, not on Objectivist thought processes.

Exactly.

Sorry, kh, but I must take issue (no point down). I understand your thesis, of course, and easily agree, but it begs the question: Those identified errors are indeed the forces that prevent us from speaking up and speaking out. You might say that you disagree in your mind but refuse to speak out in public. That might be valid in a police state when the issue is your right to trial, but when the corporate marketing committee issue at hand is raising the Old Product Redemption Rate to 5% versus 6% and the room is against you, are you willing to put your job on the line... or do you accede?

Deeper still, the theory of Cognitive Dissonance says that faced with an unchangeable fact, you will alter your conclusion. What could be more rational? But understand this. You buy a car and find out that it is not comfortable on long road trips. You then say, "I don't take many long road trips." You reduced your cognitive dissonance by changing your opinion in the face of immutable facts.

In national politics, this leads to liberals who want to help "everyone" deciding to immolate the "rich" (i.e., the middle class) to benefit the "poor" (i.e., those who do not work), thus denying their premise. Among those who claim to advocate liberty, you find people who must condemn every action (and every word) of the President of the United States. "I hate Obama. Obama said this. Therefore I disagree."

Personally, I believe that Confirmation Bias and the Attribution Fallacy explain much.

You, in particular, consistently defend your husband's practice of patent law by arguing in favor of present patent law as the best instantiation of intellectual property rights. You are subjective and invested.

Mule fritter alert!
From the article...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" — an adage that fuels our conservative tendencies. And in fact, some commentators say this is why the U.S. hasn't been able to enact universal health care, despite the fact that most individuals support the idea of reform." First, most individuals support getting "free" healthcare paid for by others. Sure, people generically support some nimbus idea of "reform". This was not the change we were hoping for...
Second, aversion to change comes from exactly this type of bad policy change, for the worse.
Conservative values are mostly based on time tested history of policy versus human behavior. Not perfect but much more reliable than the immature rantings of college aged sculls full of mush.

Ultraviolet light. That's well-established. But in the latter nineteenth century, a theory of another kind of "black light" was popular with those who preferred to believe in alternate realities.

Nailed it. Especially after the consideration of it. Most of us raised in the US, have this junk poured into to us at school. Then. after doing a little research, thinking and testing the outcomes, we see the liberal idiot-ology as the transparent grasping for power that it is.
Most here on this site do not buy group think or the "wanting to be with the smart people that have degrees from prestigious colleges and must know better" sense of belonging that most libbys have. Independent thought is against the law. I appreciate the thoughts here, even when we disagree it is much more agreeable.

From the first in the list ...
"It's why we only visit websites that express our political opinions, and why we mostly hang around people who hold similar views and tastes."
It is a conscious decision that I much prefer dealing with Objectivists or at least others who share the idea of the free trading of value for value rather than trying to explain to a socialist that no, he does not have an intrinsic claim on what I produce.
Nor do I frequent liberal sites in the hope that I will someday understand and adopt their redistribution philosophy. I have considered it, rejected it and the ideas hold no value for me.
These biases ARE rational and justified by my beliefs.

I resist the majority of these on this list but have to admit I am often guilty of Post-Purchase Rationalization.

I like my toys.

hahahahaha ha

Well, I know one thing for sure; flying is the safest way to fly.

most of us are aware of these. Bottom line, emotional response. We choose to not be rational. There is no force preventing us.

Ayn Rand treated many of these in her own essays.

In some areas of science, these biases can be very powerful. Does anyone remember the "black light" theory? For years people believed something called "black light" existed until finally the original "observer" admitted his photographic plates had a false-image problem all along.

Thanks, Maph! It is good to remind ourselves of the warning flags. It so happens that in social science education, these biases are discussed in many classes at all levels, usually at the start of the semester. The global standard English language freshman textbook, _Sociology_ by Anthony Giddens has as well a closing chapter on the scientific method. On the other hand, in physical sciences, these cognitive pitfalls seldom are discussed. See "Is Physics a Science?" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
Moreover, the sociology undergraduate curriculum includes a class in research methods. Seldom does a physical science degree offer that; and when it does, the analogous class is only about the arithmetic of statistics.

Just to footnote the footnote, while Irving Janis is credited for his 1972 book in which he claimed that he invented the term, in fact, William H. Whte coined it for his article, "Groupthink", Fortune, March 1952. (See Wikipedia, "Groupthink" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) I found the Fortune article while reading old issues for references to Ayn Rand. Following _The Fountainhead_ rumors persisted that she was writing "a novel about business."

I can't even finish this it's so stupid.