CBC Radio49%

The key to easing your doubts is  perhaps counterintuitively  more doubt, study finds 21%

By Rosie Fernandez0%

1/16/2026, 11:42:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.5% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,490 faulty-reasoning hits from 797 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.2% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,325 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.20% of the article peer group.

If you have your sights set on big goals this year, like running a marathon or writing your bar exam, you may be grappling with feelings of doubt. 
“In my previous research, I had shown that doubt really kills commitment to goals. 
And so I began asking the question of what might kill doubt,” Patrick Carroll, a professor of psychology at Ohio State University at Lima, told Bob McDonald, host of "Quirks & Quarks." 
The key to easing those doubts, Carroll found is  perhaps counterintuitively  more doubt. 
His study, involving 267 participants, was published online in *Self and Identity* and suggests that those who questioned their doubts about achieving a long-term goal showed higher commitment to those goals. 
Carroll asked his test participants to consider an important self-identity goal they had for themselves. 
A self-identity goal is one that defines who you want to become and usually takes years to accomplish, such as becoming a doctor, or an athlete. 
They filled out a questionnaire designed to measure their doubts about attaining their most important personal goal. 
They were then asked to consider a time when they had experienced doubt or confidence in their thinking. 
Participants were then asked to rate their overall commitment to their goals. 
The results consistently showed the same finding. 
Those who had higher doubts about attaining their goals and also wrote about a time when they felt doubtful were the ones who showed higher commitment to their goals. 
“When we're deliberating between holding on to a goal and letting go of it, I think what it reveals is that those beliefs can only affect judgment and action …If you can somehow undermine that belief then you can reverse the effect,” said Carroll. 
It produced a counterintuitive formula: doubt + more doubt = less doubt. 
"It's ironic that doubt can apply to anything  including doubt itself," Carroll said. 
Julie Erickson, a clinical psychologist and an adjunct faculty member at the University of Toronto, says it's not the doubt itself that can be problematic but our beliefs about doubt and how we perceive it. 
“There's real power in taking a few steps back and asking yourself, to what extent has doubt been accurate in the past for me,” said Erickson, who was not involved in the study. 
“And just taking that step to question the doubt, as the study suggests, can be a good way for doubt to lose its grip on you.” 
## Writing with your less dominant hand 
A second test was performed on university students in which they wrote out their doubts with their less dominant hand. 
This exercise is from a line of work called embodiment research, which looks at how our thoughts can be shaped by physical movements. 
“Essentially, people use their own bodily movements as cues to infer the validity of the thoughts they have in mind. 
So they take their shaky handwriting with their non-dominant hand as a cue that the thoughts  must be invalid. 
And thereby, they hold them with less confidence,” Carroll said. 
Nicole Byers is a psychologist and an adjunct research assistant professor with the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary. 
Byers, who was not involved in the study, said this is a very useful exercise. 
In an email to CBC Radio, she noted that humans have two halves of the brain and for those who are right-handed, the left half of the brain processes and produces language. 
“When we activate the language parts of our brain, we can get into rational-mode. 
So a right-handed person writing out their doubts with their right hand is going to light up those language centres and feel more sure of their doubts. 
In contrast, when a right-handed person writes with their left hand, they’re activating more diffuse parts of their brain,” she wrote. 
“I suspect not only does writing with your non-dominant hand make you question what you’re writing because it’s so messy like the original researchers propose, but also using that non-dominant hand is activating more widespread networks in your brain, which gives your brain capacity to challenge those doubts.” 
## The power of self-belief 
Carroll suggests a few ways you could try this on yourself. 
Write out any doubts you may be having about reaching a long-term goal with your less dominant hand, and shake your head “no” as you do so. 
These physical cues can help indicate that it’s not a valid thought, he said. 
Erikson also says it helps to recognize that doubt isn’t a threat to eliminate. 
“If anything, it's just a signal that we're on the field, playing in the game, so to speak. 
And not sitting on the sidelines.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Rosie Fernandez: 3.8%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Rosie Fernandez: 1.0%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 5.0%Rosie Fernandez: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Rosie Fernandez: 5.1%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias14.9%This article: 5.9%Rosie Fernandez: 3.0%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Rosie Fernandez: 0.4%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Rosie Fernandez: 1.9%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 7.7%Rosie Fernandez: 1.9%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias7.7%This article: 3.5%Rosie Fernandez: 0.9%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Rosie Fernandez: 1.1%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Rosie Fernandez: 0.5%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.5%Rosie Fernandez: 7.4%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority29.5%This article: 4.1%Rosie Fernandez: 1.0%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 6.0%Rosie Fernandez: 1.5%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 5.5%Rosie Fernandez: 2.8%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.5%This article: 6.4%Rosie Fernandez: 7.0%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization6.4%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.8%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 28.4%Rosie Fernandez: 9.4%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.4%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.9%Rosie Fernandez: 0.7%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.8%Rosie Fernandez: 4.0%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.8%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Rosie Fernandez: 0.4%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.4%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.0%Rosie Fernandez: 1.5%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 11.5%Rosie Fernandez: 5.4%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rosie Fernandez: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Rosie Fernandez: 0.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

797 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers63%attributed speech298writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 14 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 35 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 27 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Byers • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 27 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Carroll • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Erickson • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nicole Byers

100%flagged-word coverage
157 attributed words31% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Nicole Byers: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Nicole Byers: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.