What does it mean that distinguish validation from confirmation?

Looking for evidence that supports your schema is not the same as rigorously testing it.

Example: You believe that early-stage startups should always prioritize speed over code quality. Every time a fast-moving team succeeds, you mentally bookmark it. Every time a careful team fails, you note that too. But you never look for the fast teams that crashed from technical debt or the careful teams that outlasted their competitors. You have been confirming, not validating. Validation would require you to actively search for cases where speed killed a startup — and honestly weigh them against your schema.

Try this: Pick one belief you hold with high confidence — about your work, your relationships, or your decision-making style. Write it down as a testable claim. Now spend ten minutes searching exclusively for evidence that this belief might be wrong. Not evidence that supports it — you already have that. Write down what you find. If you cannot find any disconfirming evidence at all, that is not proof your belief is correct. It is a signal that you are not looking hard enough.