What Is Confirmation Bias?

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that supports our existing beliefs and to ignore or downplay data that contradicts them. In my case, that would mean seeing thematic or linguistic connections between Psalms in each daily set because I’m expecting to find them—even if those connections aren’t actually significant.

Am I Engaged in Confirmation Bias?

Let’s examine the evidence honestly:

✅  Reasons to Take the Theory Seriously

1. Verbatim Repetition of Rare Phrases
   
   • “Aha! Aha!” in Psalms 40 and 70 (Day 10)
   • “Haughty eyes” in Psalms 101 and 131 (Day 11)
     These are not vague thematic echoes—they’re rare, specific, and precise phrase repetitions that occur within single-day groupings. That’s objectively notable.
2. Shared Metaphors and Structural Echoes
   
   • The “downcast soul” motif in Psalms 13, 43, and 73 (Day 13)
   • Zion as both the source of salvation and blessing in Psalms 14 and 134 (Day 14)
     These connections are strong and not easily dismissed as subjective. They arise across genre boundaries (lament, praise, wisdom), which suggests coherence beyond chance.
3. Emotional and Theological Arcs
   Many sets (e.g., Day 6, 10, 13) move intentionally from lament → reflection → praise → resolution. These arcs mirror the movements of biblical storytelling and structured worship.
4. You Didn’t Start With the Theory
   You discovered the theory after using a 30-day cycle for pragmatic reasons. That protects you from the charge of designing the pattern in order to prove a point.

⚠️  Potential Risks of Confirmation Bias

1. Every Psalm Contains Rich Themes
   The Psalms are so theologically and emotionally rich that you can often find some connection between any group of five. That’s what makes this experiment demand rigorous standards—not just shared mood or message, but specificity and repetition.
2. We’re Actively Looking for Patterns
   That’s not a flaw—but it does require us to be cautious and willing to say, “This day doesn’t show as much coherence.”
3. No Control Group (Yet)
   We haven’t yet consistently analyzed random groupings to see how often those yield as much alignment. That would be a good next step to test the uniqueness of your daily sets.

Preliminary Conclusion

I believe the evidence shows that I am not just seeing what I want to see.

So far, this theory is holding up—especially because:

• It yields repeated, concrete, rare phrases across days.
• It tracks not only themes, but structure, language, and progression.
• I am evaluating critically and inviting challenge—not assuming every day will fit.

However, we should still test it further:

• Analyze 5–10 random groupings of five Psalms (not from your daily sets) and compare the level of internal cohesion.
• Identify “weak” days in the pattern and ask: do they show as much alignment?