Contemplating Confirmation Bias
By Daniel Miessler on September 26th, 2008: Tagged as Politics | Psychology | Sociology
Image from weber.edu
As I sit here at my allergist waiting on the all-clear after my shots, I’m thinking about something that’s been bothering me for a while.
It’s called Confirmation Bias, and it essentially means that once you’re in a camp, you tend to take inputs that agree with that camp. And as you do so you become more and more convinced that your camp is right. You essentially isolate yourself from information that might change your opinion, and as time goes on you become more and more convinced that you are correct.
This is bad.
It severely limits the ability for logical people to intelligently discuss the issues. Each participant is subscribed to his own reality, and each is convinced that he is the logical one. It becomes a futile endeavor to even debate, as each is already convinced based on belief rather than fact.
I’m worried about this with myself. I read Reddit quite a bit, and there is zero pro-McCain content on the site. None. This troubles me greatly, as the odds of him not being right about something are very low. It says to me that even if he were to be right it would be squelched. At this point I have to doubt the non-biased integrity of the medium.
So here’s a question in point: are the Democrats/Liberals not significantly to blame for the sub-prime problem due to their insistence on “everyone” being able to own a home? Doesn’t that directly lead to pressure to loan to those who are unqualified? And don’t they stand to gain politically from the appreciation of those with sub-prime mortgages?
This seems quite logical to me, yet it’s not the type of thing you’d ever see on Reddit. Why? Well, I don’t know. Maybe it’s stupid, and if that’s the case then great. But there’s a more sinister possibility, i.e. that it is logical, but that it points to a flaw in the liberal narrative. That option is what troubles me.
Don’t get me wrong–I already voted for Obama and I’m rather sure that McCain is even more dangerous than Bush, but I’m uncomfortable with the fact that so few intelligent people disagree with me within the circles I frequent.
Quite simply, I need to expand my inputs. I need to seek out those who can find problems in my understanding, not simply reinforce it. If you have any suggestions for logical, right-leaning content, please let me know. I’m all over the Ron Paul economic theory stuff already; what I’m looking for is intelligent pro-McCain commentary.
If it doesn’t exist, that’s fine. But I’m damn sure going to look. I refuse to succumb to the bias of groupthink.:
--
Well if the VAST majority of the nation makes under 200k/year or so and the Dems represent this category, then by definition of a Democracy (which the US IS NOT, we are a republic), they are representing the majority, hence are “right”.
Sure, there were economists who suggested ultra-low rates and weak underwriting procedures might cause the current issues years ago, but if you ask Joe-Six Pack (as DM might say, a typical mouth-breather) whether he cares if the economy MIGHT tank in 10 years because his home loan is too large and at too low a rate to be sustainable, he’ll laugh, show you his new deck and say “Paid for it using the president’s Tax stimulus check, don’tcha know!”
note: I used economic indicators, but it could be anything that divides the nation into unequal population groups with extreme levels of emotion and/or devotion to an idea, the Iraq war in the 2004 election is a prime example
I’ve got plenty of knocks on Obama, but like I said when we were at BH, I will vote for him. McCain has…..disappointed me, to say the least.
Remember, I used to like him in 2000, but he finally lost me when he voted AGAINST banning torture, thus opening up its use on OUR soldiers. He did it because he knew it would make him appear strong to the pro-war right (and because the White house indicated it would veto the bill anyway). This kind of personal flip-flop (as a POW who WAS tortured, to not vote against banning it is the WORST example of selling your soul for politics) is why many who formerly supported him have nothing but distaste and a lingering sense of disappointment. Hard to get those people to defend him, isn’t it?
If you’re looking for intelligent Pro-McCain commentary, get off the internet and talk to his local people. The campaign the national org is running hasn’t really provided much chance for his supporters to be proud of his words or actions, so it gets tough to defend him.
Comment by Michael S Black — 9/26/2008 @ 5:14 pm
Haven’t most of your posts fallen into this? Too many people try and make an issue black or white when it actually is quite grey.
@Michael S Black - good commentary.
Comment by dale — 9/26/2008 @ 5:25 pm
Dude, I applaud this. Totally, totally, totally.
Expand your inputs. Educate yourself to expert levels on the pro AND cons on each issue from both or multiple perspectives.
I’m a Republican, and I tell people that they should be open to opposing points of view. In doing so they will either validate their own on new points, or old ones, or find that they have better choices simply because they talked about it.
Telling others to be open-minded is much easier that simply being open-minded, and yet to be assured that it’s worthwhile, I will occassionally educate the opposition in their own rhetoric, to take the conversation to the next level, and give them more than one thing to think about.
Again, I’m a Republican. It doesn’t mean I’m Pro-Life. It doesn’t mean I’m Pro-Creationist. And having any party affiliation doesn’t mean I must be closed to better options.
Daniel, please continue this line. Thank you.
-=T=-
Comment by TIMM — 9/26/2008 @ 6:07 pm
I found that talking politics when I lived in SF was frustrating: everyone agreed. Now that I live in Boston, I run agains far more conservatives everywhere, and it really allows me to examine the issues. I love it. And the nice thing about Boston conservativees: the yare intelligent. They’ve thought through there positions, and don’t tend to fall back on religious arguments.
Of course, far too many of them to regurgitate the talking points that have already been debunked. We can only do so much.
Comment by Adam Young — 9/26/2008 @ 7:41 pm
I tried to overcome this by listening to the right-winged radio pundits like Limbaugh, Savage, etc. That was a mistake.
Comment by Maxo — 9/26/2008 @ 8:08 pm
I’m not sure if you’ve heard this episode of This American Life or not. It does a GREAT job of explaining what led to the housing / mortgage crisis. It’s all about a Giant Pool of Money.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
Comment by Carl M — 9/26/2008 @ 8:49 pm
So…….
Watching the debate on DVR… and I get to 9:38, where Tom/Jim/John says I opposed the president “On torture of prisoners”….
Seriously, is it just me, or do the chills reverberate over the aether?!
Comment by Michael S. Black — 9/27/2008 @ 2:15 am
http://www.heritage.org//Press/Commentary/ed092408a.cfm Here is another interesting bit about Democrats and the current financial crisis. Skip the first few sensational paragraphs to get to the good stuff.
Comment by shane — 9/29/2008 @ 3:58 pm
Daniel, this is a great point that I’ve often struggled with.
Unfortunately, what I tend to find is that the people who exhibit the most extreme cases of confirmation bias (and other logical pitfalls) never think about stuff like this, at least not in reference to their own beliefs.
Most people simply aren’t that introspective. They don’t question their own beliefs and don’t constantly try to assess their own objectivity (or lack of it).
Sadly, the truly thoughtful folks — the ones that devote time and effort to being informed and having defensible positions — are the only ones who engage in this sort of self-conscious hand wringing. So, we step back to examine what we believe and engage in what amounts to a masturbatory, neurotic exercise. I say it’s masturbatory because I often find that our political opponents don’t care that we’ve tried to maintain objectivity; our positions will still be derided as biased, partisan, and dogmatic.
Comment by JoseMonkey — 9/30/2008 @ 2:44 pm
I always make sure I’m exposed to both conservative and liberal commentary…by watching both John Stewart and The Colbert Report.
Comment by sucker punch — 9/30/2008 @ 5:27 pm
The problem with people is that they don’t see how all structures become old and finally die. A tree grows and it will eventually start dying.
You take from a corrective move what you can and try to use it as a stepping stone into something other than it.
But people always find something precious that they attach themselves to and they think it will solve all the problems.
Whatever works, works only as long as it works.
No sooner is there some structure that the collective sees valuable everyone will begin glueing their own interests to it.
Reddit will go through all the similar cycles of corruption as any other posse.
Comment by Pale — 10/1/2008 @ 4:16 pm