top of page

I Always Find Confirmation That I Have No Bias

You get what you find. And you find what you think. Confirmation bias and puzzles is a funny thing. Recently, in these online communities it's become a bit of a mic drop. I have this idea/solve...sorry, confirmation bias. End of discussion. There's one problem with the above. Confirmation bias is necessary at some level while working through puzzle progression. Let me provide an example. Humor me and assume V5 and I9 lead to Montreal, Quebec in Canada. Let's also assume Rue Drummond is important, where we are able to locate a unique visual match with two instances of words etched in stone which align to the verse. Notice, the puzzle seems to be narrowing. We often refer to this as a bullseye puzzle. Information leads you from the outer more broad rings(think state or city) to more precise locations(streets or landmarks) and onto the end spot or bullseye. Understanding this, why would we not use selective search with caution? We are not going to leave Montreal, right? Would we leave the Golden Square Mile? How about Rue Drummond?


The question becomes how do we leverage critical thinking in conjunction with selective search? Let's continue with the example. Given the number of clues in close proximity, we may assume The only standing member is near the Mount Stephen Club. Granite walls and citadel both have highly probable options etched in stone very close to the Mount Stephen Club so we apply this information to narrow our search. The area appears to be established so we make an assumption not to leave it unless explicitly told to. It's a reasonable way to attack a puzzle of this nature and I'd bet the majority of hunters are using this method. So where does this go astray? You've decided the unique visual match at the Mount Stephen Club must indicate the treasure ground. Because Chicago, Cleveland, and Boston, right? 25% of the puzzles leverage this method. Now, The only standing member must be a tree due to the following line, Of a forest. There were trees on the lawn of the club. In turn , this means White stone closest must be a literal white stone next to a tree. Well, there will be more than one, it has to be the nearest. So, you land on a brick in the facade of the building which appears to be whiter. A facade which has been resurfaced and cleaned. The trees confirm it and the brick confirms the trees all because the unique visual confirms the treasure ground....and perhaps, you used to be employed as a detective for the Government which confirms you are great at puzzles. Do you see the difference in the examples? One leverages critical thinking while delving into selective search to locate additional clues. The other takes a preconceived belief and searches to confirm everything against it. There's a whole lot of the latter occurring in The Secret community. People are also not better at puzzles due to the amount of hours they obsess over them. That time can easily be a waste. People are better at puzzles due to their mindfulness in approach and their methods. Your suspicion is true. Cause you made it to be.


Music - sophie meiers - confirmation/bias

241 views13 comments

Recent Posts

See All

13 Comments


StrangeMorris
StrangeMorris
Jul 07, 2023

The Sage guy posted all his stuff on Discord and has solved the remaining nine puzzles. Just ignore him like everyone else there does.

Like

HCS137
HCS137
Jul 05, 2023

I guess it depends on in what context confirmation bias or selective search is being used. If the person is actively aware they are using it as a strategy and stays within logical parameters, then I can see it being a potentially useful tool in certain situations. As you acknowledge, though, if that line gets blurred and people dismiss contradictory evidence, then I would think it becomes counterproductive. Perhaps a tool best used by those more experienced. And as for trying to argue verses, I’m really not trying to here - I misunderstood and messed up with my initial post. Back to my rock…Cheers!

Like
HCS137
HCS137
Jul 05, 2023
Replying to

I hear ya…It would be nice to have some normal discussions about topics. The pages and blogs are terrible for that but I guess that’s what we are limited to. Plus, it’d be a lot easier to know when you‘re grinding me! Now, I gotta get back to my 68 page solution.

Like

The Sage
The Sage
Jul 05, 2023

Lol...you sound like someone trying to sound knowledgeable but the emperor has no clothes. I have watched your videos and man, you guys are so lost, hashing and re-hashing the same old,same old tired jargon about Drummond street and MSC yada yada yada for years and with absolutely no concrete theories or dig spots proposed! Going around in a circle for what 20 years now? You promote a rather simplistic, unimaginative method to analyze these puzzles which is the reason so few have been solved. If you develop a methodology for these puzzles and then apply it rigorously and then you find EXACTLY what the theory said you would find at that place, then its not confirmation bias. It's called…

Like
trovebespokearts
trovebespokearts
Jul 06, 2023
Replying to

I, for one, find the tidbits and critical thinking put forth by John, Chris, and Phil to be some of the best that has been posted. Perhaps it isn't all "right" but their methods of working towards methods are, well, methodical and as close to "scientific" as I've seen anyone post about. The "community" is constantly absolutely flooded by "theories" that begin with whatever scrap of matchy-matching is "discovered" by someone (often "coincidentally" related to whatever book, movie, hobby is holding that poster's attention at the moment) and then confirmation bias is often the ONLY thing used to tie an elaborate web of far-fetched clues. There is certainly a place in the community for endless birthday celebrations, unboxing gifts, cigarette smok…

Like

HCS137
HCS137
Jul 05, 2023

If I humour you, I’d rather do it with V5 and I9 instead but, yes, it would seem that the “Bullseye” approach works well, getting us to focus in on a progressively defined area (Montreal —> Golden Square Mile —> rue Drummond).


I don’t mean to be a pain in the a$$ but what if we are misinterpreting the end visual cue to begin with? The unique visual matches for the first three “solved” puzzles were, IMO, hidden quite well, especially for Chicago and Boston. We would only recognize them as a clue in the image if we were in the correct end spot.

Honest question: why would we think the end visual cue for Montreal would be such an…

Like
Fenix
Fenix
Jul 05, 2023
Replying to

Haha, always trying to argue verses! 😄


I’m not so sure it’s always bad. People certainly make it out to be the worst thing a person could do in a puzzle and often times that is true. However, selective search is confirmation bias and it seems almost essential to a puzzle of this nature. Although, it can also go awry. Slippery slope but I think most of us leverage it in some form. Whether we admit to it or not is another story.


Maybe I should have went into the three types of confirmation bias a bit.

Like
bottom of page