Here's a paragraph from an attendee:
The second lecture, on the psychology of bird identification, was given by David Sibley. In his opening remarks, he said he was always interested in the topic, but the recent debate over the rediscovery (or not) of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and its associated evidence, really has intrigued him. He provided lots of interesting observations on phenomenon and human behaviors that prevent us from being entirely objective. In general, as our experience in bird watching grows, we evolve from a step-wise form of identification to a holistic one. This evolution allows us to make very educated shortcut guesses as identification, that tend to be correct (out of experience) but can also be risky (because the process skips the stepwise approach). There are other factors as well that I will not delve into. All in all it was a very interesting lecture that hit home with me several times. In many ways, the process of identifying a bird with limited information is very similar to the process of figuring out a software problem with limited information. In both cases it is not uncommon for what I would call "conspiracy theories" to form and grow. Human tendency is to note evidence that supports the theory instead of evidence that contradicts the theory. It requires a purposely objective approach to consider the alternatives and reach root cause (or identity).A bit more on this workship is here.