Content area
This essay applies current knowledge of confirmation bias to America's diverse culture, specifically to religion and politics where myriad individual and collective beliefs are deeply imbedded and mutually exclusive. As a common and automatic human tendency, confirmation bias is a hindrance to objectivity and learning, and it consistently proves to be a factor in social conflict and political polarization.
ABSTRACT: This essay applies current knowledge of confirmation bias to America's diverse culture, specifically to religion and politics where myriad individual and collective beliefs are deeply imbedded and mutually exclusive. As a common and automatic human tendency, confirmation bias is a hindrance to objectivity and learning, and it consistently proves to be a factor in social conflict and political polarization.
Imagine a woman sitting at the breakfast table with her husband. Pointing toward the window, she says "Oh look, there's a cardinal." He says "I don't see a cardinal." She says, "It's right there in the holly. Maybe you can't see it from where you're sitting. Come over here." He gets up and moves around the table, leans over her shoulder, and says, "Oh yes, now I see it. What a beautiful bird. I didn't realize they were in our area this time of year."
Or, consider a different scenario. The husband says, "No, I can't see a cardinal. And I'm sure cardinals are not common here in July." She replies, "It's right there in the holly bush." He snaps "You must be crazy." He pulls out his cell phone calls a friend. "Hey, Butch. Have you seen any cardinals at your place? Not? Me neither." He disconnects and immediately aims the camera out the window in the opposite direction from where his wife pointed. He snaps a pic and turns the screen toward her. "See?" he says confidently. "I told you. There's no cardinal. Case closed." He pushes away from the table, swaggers off into the living room, and plops down in his easy chair, while his wife continues to watch the cardinal.
Now, I hope your reaction to the second vignette is "What a jerk! No one could possibly be that closed-minded." If you thought that, I commend you for recognizing confirmation bias. But I would ask, are you sure no one could be as closed-minded as that guy?
There can be no doubt that everyone is biased in certain ways. Psychologists have identified a long list of specific cognitive biases, generally characterized as systematic deviations from logic and rationality.45 Biases should not be confused with heuristics, a term describing mental shortcuts that come into play in routine situations that don't matter much to anyone. All of us at times evaluate data, make decisions, and perform tasks without giving it much thought. Acquired habits and preferences range from child rearing methods and home remedies to how to care for a lawn, grill steaks, and groom dogs. Biases, on the contrary, are beliefs and perspectives that operate at a much deeper intellectual and emotional level, involving ethics, morality, self-identity, personal values, and issues like social justice and civic responsibility. Biases typically persist unacknowledged or unrecognized at the core of our highly complex belief system and often emerge as unsound judgment laced with self-justification and denial. Racial bias, for example, has been an issue in America for centuries and most people of all ethnic groups deny their own bias or prejudice. Many sociologists are convinced that as long as there are ethnic subcultures within a nation there will be marked differences in perspective between and among them, often leading to conflict with little effort toward reconciliation. Sometimes, constructive dialogue can ease tension and allow a degree of understanding, productivity, and satisfaction. However, the most challenging forms of bias are difficult to overcome. We have every reason to conclude that bias in general is the enemy of learning and objectivity, and it consistently proves to be a factor in various levels of social conflict. Like stepping around a table to see a cardinal in a bush, sometimes seeing and understanding another point-of-view requires open-mindedness and willingness to acknowledge error.
Admittedly, no one can fully comprehend another person's perspectives or personal reality. In the short story by H. G. Wells called The Country of the Blind, the principal character Nuñez encounters a tribe in South America that has descended from generations of people without eyes. They cannot grasp the concept of sight. They think a man with strange sockets in his face is deformed, and his constant talk about what he "sees" and his questions like "Can't you see what I mean?" indicate his insanity. And Nuñez is baffled as to how to communicate with people whose perspectives are totally void of the concept of sight, which he takes for granted.
In the same way, in the real world no male can fully grasp the feelings and experiences associated with being female. No person with a fully functional body can comprehend being deaf or blind from birth, or quadriplegic. Likewise, no privileged white person can fully embrace the realities of an underprivileged person of color or the discrimination and denigration that may accompany it. No person living an entire life comfortably within the borders of a developed country like the USA can relate to life in a war-torn and impoverished region of the world. The many aspects of these differences in experience and resulting perspectives are beyond true comprehension by an "outsider." Genuine empathy is virtually impossible. However, we can open ourselves to changed thinking by listening to their stories, and accompanying them to their routine places. We can attempt empathy by trying to place ourselves in their circumstances. The resulting move toward understanding in turn fosters tolerance, respect, and cooperation. Everyone wins.
One especially troublesome element of cognitive bias is called "confirmation bias," which is a common and well documented human tendency to cling to and seek support for assumptions, beliefs, and perceptions regardless of evidence to the contrary.46 The term was coined by English psychologist Peter Wason around I960, and it was initially applied clinically to the irrational defense of delusions by people with personality disorders, such as paranoia and schizophrenia. It is related to what is called "self-sustaining delusion." More recently the same term has been applied to natural, non-clinical, forms of bias. Of course, irrational people are not capable of mustering self-discipline or examining evidence critically in order to alter their beliefs and align thinking with reality. That inability is part of their disorder. In contrast, rational people are capable of doing so and we expect it of each other. But often confirmation bias gets in the way.
The psychology of confirmation bias is complex, partly because it occurs unconsciously, masking erroneous beliefs and bolstering self-confidence.47 As a result, honest people get trapped in a bizarre bubble of self-delusion where misguided convictions can withstand any level of challenge. In short, we assume our views and beliefs to be incontestable. If questioned or opposed, we construct a fortress and hunker down behind the walls. We do that because facing the possibility of error is emotionally painful, and being forced to change our thinking is embarrassing. Therefore it is not an option. It's like the politician who said: "I have no fear of dying; I'm terrified of looking bad on TV." For such reasons, we resist changing our beliefs. Opposing arguments have no positive impact. They only deepen our resolve to defend our position.
As a common but undesirable human trait, confirmation bias has attracted serious attention in recent years and has been thoroughly studied and documented.48 Following are the major tendencies associated with it:
1. Regard beliefs and assumptions to be indisputable facts.
2. Engage in circular reasoning and illogical arguments to defend assumptions and beliefs.
3. Beatify "personal mentor" sources as trustworthy and above error.
4. Seek out confirmation for existing beliefs from additional sources known to agree.
5. Interpret new information in a way that supports existing beliefs.
6. Block, dismiss, or ignore evidence that counters existing beliefs.
7. Avoid exposure to new evidence contrary to existing beliefs.
8. Fabricate new evidence or distort existing evidence to support beliefs.
9. Attack, ridicule, and demonize opposing views and those who hold them.
10. Strategically alter or camouflage a stated belief to avert challenge.
11. Recall information selectively, so as to support existing beliefs.
12. Seek affiliation with others who are like-minded and ritualize (act out) beliefs as a group.
Everyone sees the world from a narrow and somewhat unique perspective. And everyone constructs a complex belief system from acquired knowledge and experience. A common term for that is "worldview," which amounts to our portfolio of beliefs, assumptions and opinions that in turn direct all behavior, choices, and decisions, regardless ofthe unreliability ofsources. The human ethical beliefsystem is closely allied to emotional balance and sense of personal identity and security. For that reason, challenge to our beliefs can trigger both fear and anger, which in turn engages the commonly called "fight or flight" response. Pride and self-esteem demand defense when threatened. The "flight" response might result in switching off the TV or radio, slamming books closed, blocking our ears, or physically running away. The "fight" response might lead us to intense argument or effort to stop the mouth of an opponent. We might even go on a rampage and destroy property and possessions as an expression of frustration. That is part of the dynamics of "mob mentality" when unhealthy and irrational impulses overtake a large group and they do what none of them would do as an individual.
Confirmation bias occurs in all fields ofendeavor, including scientific experimentation, financial investment, business management, medical practice, and education. It should come as no surprise that religion and politics are two broad cultural sub-systems where prejudice and confirmation bias are prominent and tend to perpetuate conflict, animosity, and hatred. Perhaps in these arenas, more than others, false beliefs remain long after being discredited. Political issues involve deep conviction, sometimes related to moral values and typically charged with bias. The issue might pertain to party loyalty or devotion to a specific leader, but differences in view are interpreted in a way that heightens conflict, demonizes others, and draws battle lines, lauding one's own group as true patriots and denouncing the other as enemies of the nation. Good leaders are compelled to manage such a complex dialectic system by promoting productive dialogue and facilitating common goals, understanding, and tolerance, despite inter-personal and political differences. How well that is done determines national unity, stability, and advancement.
In America, journalists and the media in general have been characterized by some as prone to inaccurate reporting to support a biased agenda. But there is a difference between a journalist and a commentator. By definition, journalists observe, interview, research, and report. Ideally their methods are objective, dedicated to disclosing and reporting facts. In contrast, commentators, bloggers, and pundits typically earn a living by interpreting news looking through a socio-political lens. Often that involves distortion of data and misrepresentation of facts, possibly by intention. Some call that propaganda, or perhaps putting a left or right "spin" on the news. Whichever is the case, the presence of confirmation bias in politics is undeniably problematic, in that most people seek out support for existing views and avoid information that challenges them. That means that conservatives tend to listen to commentators like Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, because they explain the news in a way that supports conservative beliefs. Those who are liberal prefer commentators like Arianna Huffington, Glenn Greenwald, Jon Stewart, or Rachel Maddow, because they interpret and explain the news from a liberal point of view. The result on both sides is the intentional and systematic reinforcement of existing biases and distorted perspectives, leaving the public effectively ignorant of truth but firmly entrenched in opposition. It is very much like the dilemma of a jury that listens to several days of testimony directed and interpreted by attorneys who draw conclusions and make assertions not actually known or proved, all to sway the jury's thinking in their direction. The common characterization of politicians and lawyers as liars may be exaggerated but is neither isolated nor accidental, and it would appear that journalists bear the same stigma. Sadly, such essential sub-systems of American culture have become implements of confirmation bias, contributing to an erosion of trust and communication, widening social and political division, and stoking the fires of conflict.
Concerning religion, most Americans have a subconscious stockpile of what Stone and Duke describe as "embedded theology."49 From childhood everyone is infused with many maxims, truisms, images, stories and beliefs from many sources (parents, teachers, books, television, etc.). So, many of us can articulate what we believe without knowing when and how those beliefs developed. But we are loyal to them, particularly if they can be attributed to the sagacity of a parent or close mentor. We might answer a challenge with "That's what my mother taught me, and I believe it." A Jew or a Christian might simply say, "It's in the Bible." A Muslim would say "It's taught in the Koran. Religion embraces all aspects of life and involves personal values, self-identity, and inner well-being, so when confronted with a different point of view we feel threatened to the core. If pressed, we might appeal to a religious leader to provide a defense of specific doctrines. "I'm confused; tell me what to believe." In this way we prove ourselves to be sheep, listening to the voice of a familiar shepherd, who is perhaps sincere but misguided, or perhaps a wolf dressed like a sheep (or a shepherd).
There is irony in the fact that America is home to myriad Christian denominations,where everyone imagines his/her church to have a monopoly on divine truth. Most do not realize that religious leaders are themselves biased, meaning they are educated in and devoted to a specific tradition, and therefore they draw from a deep well of carefully worded explanations, defenses, and proof texts. Christian apologetics is typically not just the defense of Christianity but the defense of sectarian traditions and doctrines. And, of course, parishioners of all denominations view their pastors/ministers/priests as teachers of the truth, while they assume others to be proponents of lies and heresy. Demonizing the opposition is a common defense mechanism of confirmation bias.
It is readily acknowledged that religious beliefs in general are impossible to prove or disprove by empirical and objective means.50 Part of the complexity of religion is its spiritual and supernatural platform, which is outside the arena of objectivity and rationality. Its scope of evidence for belief is personal and abstract. Furthermore, all Christian doctrines draw from biblical sources based on interpretation. For such reasons, matters of faith are in fact personal biases that are typically reinforced on a weekly basis at an assembly. Religious convictions have many elements that are healthy and beneficial, but some can be dangerous if they are allowed to displace reality or take precedence over human well-being. This happens in the extreme when a delusional cult leader promotes radically aberrant doctrines, perhaps also rationalizing immoral and irrational behavior, and persuades others to follow even to the point of death.
Carlos Bovell, a graduate of an evangelical seminary, mentions confirmation bias as part of the "unhealthy dynamics" within the doctrine of biblical inerrancy that today is a foundational credo in conservative, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches.51 This too has become a battleground between enlightenment and traditional church doctrine. But dialogue for the past century has proved fruitless because of the deeply entrenched mind-set and circular reasoning among those who cling to narrow doctrines as the mark of Christ's true followers. Miron Zuckerman and Jonathan McPhetres have conducted research on confirmation bias with regard to Christian beliefs, concluding that a higher measure of skepticism of science and a lower level of understanding of scientific principles are commonly found among Christian fundamentalists and uneducated followers of established church traditions.52 These represent the population segment where biblical inerrancy is the most heavily promoted and embraced, and the majority of Christians believe what they have been taught without any sense of responsibility for personal research or objective consideration of counter-views.
The defense of political views follows a similar path, often involving infused moral values derived from religion or perspectives acquired from family of origin. Such issues as gender domination, abuse of power, abortion, sexual orientation, and social justice are examples. Of course, there are intelligent and honest people on both sides of every issue, and anyone can become enslaved by confirmation bias. Sometimes, digging for facts beneath mountains of political rhetoric or behind walls of religious doctrine seems a formidable challenge. For that reason breaking out of erroneous conviction requires exceptional resolve.
Most Christians interpret the Bible with complex filters developed over a lifetime. Few study at any significant academic depth. Many church people read only "devotional" materials written to make them "feel good." Others read Christian fiction, which are mostly "sacred fantasies" that avoid or mask the "worldly" and support a sense ofsecurity and rectitude. Some Christians are fascinated by the apocalyptic, so they seek out novels involving angels, demons, spiritual experiences, and events like the rapture and end times. But few are driven to unravel issues like biblical textual variants, falsely alleged prophecies, conflicts within and among the Gospels, or conflicts between science and scripture. Most Christians avoid topics like comparative world religions, church history, and philosophy of religion. Instead, they read material that defends what they already believe, but avoid material that fosters doubt. That is the essence of confirmation bias.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the introduction to his Master Class on thinking scientifically, comments that internet search engines are "the epitome of confirmation bias." He is referring to the embedded features (algorithms) that systematically favor certain values over others in response to user queries. In essence, users are fed data they tend to favor. Besides that, the internet has rapidly become a vast reservoir of disinformation and misinformation. Everyone has an opinion, and we live in a time and place where the internet and social media are popular avenues of self-expression. Anyone can post a blog or a series of "how to" videos accessed by users who assume its reliability because of a record of frequent visits.
With regard to religion, it is ironic that the most reliable and reputable theological journals are not available on-line. The best biblical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries are sometimes difficult to access. When confronted with a biblical issue it is common to do a hurried internet search, latch onto whatever resource appears at the top of the list, and call it research. So, the typical searcher is more likely to access information that is easy to find but heavily biased. The only thing accomplished is either misinformation or the confirmation of existing beliefs. The same is true of political issues, conspiracy theories, and "fake news" propagated to misdirect public thinking.
In contrast, education and enlightenment require honest effort leading to discovery of information beyond the horizon and beneath the mountains of misinformation. The result of true research is the acquisition of factual data and a broadening of intellectual perspective. It cannot happen while clinging to an existing belief and constructing a defensive wall to resist challenge. Genuine research and learning require asking deeper questions, like "why?" and "what does that mean?" and "where did that come from?" It is possible to listen with genuine interest, to read with discernment, and to think logically. But change in perspective typically cannot be forced by debate or argumentation. No one can convince a closed-minded person of anything. Each individual has to shoulder responsibility for asking questions, challenging assumptions, and engaging in bona fide research outside the box of personal bias and belief.
In America, the land of freedom and opportunity, everyone has the right to think freely and evade the grip of confirmation bias. But doing so requires courage, honesty, humility, and a hunger for truth.
45 M.G. Haselton, D. Nettle, and P.W. Andrews,"The evolution of cognitive bias." (PDF). In D.M. Buss (ed.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2005) 724-746. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of cognitive biases.
46 Kendra Cherry, "How Confirmation Bias Works," Very Well Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024, Retrieved May 2020. See Wikipedia, Peter Cathcart Wason, Retrieved May 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter Cathcart Wason. Peter Wason and Sheila Jones, "Negatives: Denotation and Connotation," British Journal of Psychology (1963:54 ,4), 299-307.
47 R.S. Nickerson, "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 2 (2, 1998): 175-220.
48 Cordelia Fine, A Mind of its Own: how your brain distorts and deceives (Cambridge, UK: Icon Books, 2006); Margit E. Oswald and Stefan Grosjean, "Confirmation bias", in Pohl, Rüdiger F. (ed.), Cognitive Illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2004). See very thorough treatment https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation bias
49 Howard W Stone and James O. Duke, How to Think Theologically (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 12-16.
50 Adrian Furnham, "The Psychology of Delusions," Psychology Today. June 23, 2015. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sidewaysview/201506/the-psychology-delusions
51 Carlos Bovell, Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 134.
52 Miron Zuckerman and Jonathan McPhetres, "Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy," Plos One, Nov 2019. Retrieved June 2020. https://iournals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371/iournal.pone.0207125
Copyright Anaphora Literary Press Spring 2021