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