What You See Is What You Believe .

I'll address Jerry's thought first. I do think that both positive and negative experiences weigh in on our beliefs and thoughts. To give an example of how negative anecdotal evidence could effect a belief I will turn to the health care system.

Say your aunt gets some version of cancer. The doctors say she has a good chance of recovering. Maybe they even gave a percentage chance of recovering that was encouraging. They say 75% of people survive. But sadly your aunt was not fortunate to be part of that 75%. The next time you hear of someone you know who gets that particular version of cancer, will you believe the doctors prognosis? Even though the doctors are basing their expected outcomes on tons of research and countless databases with information regarding the outcomes of patients with this particular cancer, your mind set will remain pessimistic. Your mind can not be modified with other forms of evidence, your anecdotal evidence of your aunt’s experience is exerting its dominance on your belief. Again, I'm not trying to say that this is wrong, I'm just pointing out that our personal experiences weigh heavily onto what we believe whether they are positive or negative.

I loved Glenn's comment. That is what I needed to hear to test and challenge my thoughts in regards to this theory. I understand "online processing" as he explained it. To clarify, I didn't say that all decisions and beliefs were solely based on anecdotal evidence, I only wish to suggest that personal experiences weigh heavily, and much more heavily than we give credit for.

I see and support this idea of "online processing" being ONE means to determining truth but I think that critical thinking, reasoning, and logical analysis are easily pushed and pulled around by our experiences. Those experiences are the strong hold that anchors your thoughts. If you had a different set of personal experiences you would have a tendency/desire to confirm or reject the conclusions that your online processing brings. A tendency that is based on anecdotal evidence.

Let me allow C.S. Lewis eloquently speak on the idea that singularly, "online processing" doesn't become permanent in our minds in a way that can only be removed by another well placed cognitive argument.

On reasoning he used to depend on which he now sees is wrong he says…“I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so."...
“We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief (Christian) nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed…”...
“As a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument?

A final example is one familiar to many UNC grads (specifically those in religious circles)...Bart Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman was formerly a devout Christian. In his class he explains his loss of the faith. He reports that in studying scripture the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible led him to question its validity and ultimately led him away from Christianity. (This is where I attempt to see deep into the heart of this man without ever meeting him) I have heard report from a few friends that although he credits his loss of faith to these things, his real issue and gut wrenched problem with Christianity seems to lie in his disapproval of its followers, not in his concerns with the text. He just seems to be the most passionately angry about Christians and how they live their lives. I'm not saying that his reasoning and textual arguments don't also substantiate his dismissal of Christianity but I do think his disenchanting personal experiences strongly persuade him to believe a certain way.

So maybe the better title would have been. What You See Is What You Want To Believe. I reiterate, I think personal experiences weigh heavily into determining what theories and conclusions we have.

The proposed question is... Where does this anecdotal evidence belong? and how should we consider it?