So, who knows what conformation bias is? Hands nice and high please… Okay, some but not all.
Ready for some mansplaining then, not-all people?
When you really truly believe something about yourself or the world, to the point where its effectively part of your identity (think the classic vegan/crossfit/bible basher/flat earthers/left and right wing political leanings. You know, the ones who get ripped on for being soooooo invested in the stuff they are so very into, and the people who do everything they can to throw their beleifs n their face, those people have it too) it creates certain inclinations to what we see and how we see it.
It’s like it’s a core part of them, they wouldn’t know who they are without it. And if they don’t know who they would be without this core belief, that’s is probably pretty scary. So, the Ego kicks in. That ego… that fucking ego…
Now, the ego is useful. Mostly. Its how you identify yourself consciously, sometimes with positive traits, sometimes with negative. Depending on your life experience, general level of neuroticism, and lots of other factors (that are SUPER difficult to quantify) we view ourselves based on who we think we are based on what we’ve been taught about ourselves by ourselves and the world at large. And, to put it mildly, the Ego is really really invested in making sure that those beliefs we hold, we have of ourselves and the things we care about, don’t get messed with.
Which is where trigger warnings come into play. Well, sometimes anyway.
Well, that defensive mechanism that the Ego engages to protect yourself and your beliefs is called confirmation bias.
Have you ever been arguing with someone about a particular subject, and no matter how much evidence you have at hand, they refuse to acknowledge it, and even start to get pretty upset about the longer the argument it goes on for?
Has that ever been you? Before you answer, sorry but the answer is definitely yes. Maybe not to the extent you get super upset and threaten the other persons genitals with a good blowtorching. But at least frustrated to the point of really not want to talk to them anymore.
Now, before I go any further Greg, this has literally nothing to do with the validity of which side of the argument is right or wrong, and waaaaay more to do with how things are and aren’t debated and considered and talked about.
Some people are talking about why things happened, and ideally also want to contribute to offering constructive input as to what to do about that why. Those are productive people.
Other people… are talking about why it’s not their fault or problem. Or about how angry they are that really shitty stuff happened, and/or keeps happening, and act extremely according to that anger. (some of you may already sense where this is going...)
Consider the some topics. climate change. Rona. Gun control. Impeachment. Bushfire inaction. Rape. Equality of opportunity/outcome. Boomers and millennials. Hell, butter and margarine.
How much opinion and evidence do you see either side of the coin with these subjects?
Where is the line that actually has reasonable constructive debate on a solution?
Is anyone ever remotely interested in that, given our Egos don’t really give a shit as long as we get to feel right?...
Yes, Sharon, we do need evidence of things to be able to make informed and effective decisions on actions. It’s impossible not to. But the question I’m raising is, how much of that is genuinely constructive to a conversation, rather than just stuff to prove that one side is right and smart and attractive and cool and superior, while the other is wrong and dumb and ugly and shameful and lame?
How much is aimed at making things better, rather than making you feel good about yourself and your opinion? Pretty tricky to find line, isn’t it?
Consider the most recent worldwide event. Hard to miss it.
Black lives matter? Of course they fucking do. Its not even a question. And if it is? Well, we're never going to be friends.
All lives matter? Again, of course they fucking do.
Honestly, that’s really not what anyone is debating at this point. Because frankly, they both mean the same thing.
The point of black lives matter, at least how it looks to me anyway, is the argument that some specifically coloured lives, seem to matter less in specific ways at specific times. And it’s a very, very reasonable argument to make. Sorry, bit of an understatement there…
And most people who are saying all lives matter probably do agree with that, but are also making the point that super uncool shit happening to people isn’t just happening to one specific group of people, regardless of frequency and brutality in certain demographics…
The only reason I bring this up though, is when you start to look at the "evidence" and arguments that you can see streaming through Facebook feeds on either side of that black lives/all lives… conversation(?), if we can call it that.
“This guy did this, he deserves to be punished!!!”
“But that guy did that, he had it coming!!!”
“Look at his record!!”
“Look at his record!!”
“But what about all the other times that this happened to us?!?!”
“What about all the other times it’s been justified!?!?”
“It’s not their fault!”
“It’s not our fault either!”
And around and around it goes…
Pretty productive, huh…
The point of it is, that humans will go looking for evidence that proves what they already believe. Or absolve themselves of responsibility. Which every human wants to do. Because being presented with something that would otherwise force them to question those beliefs, and by extension their ability to believe what they want to believe about themselves, is scary and unwanted or frustrating and triggering. All of which is unlikely to be productive in solving the thing…
I read a few things recently that imply that even the greatest minds in our scientific community can’t overcome this. That the pursuit of truth through the testing of ideas and theories with scientific method, isn’t above political leanings and confirmation bias.
Scientists are still human after all. Yes, smarter humans, but smarter humans usually just go looking for fancier evidence. Or set out to make their own (which happens a lot more than we wish it did).
I’m not asking you to go and read any scientific journals to find out for yourself, but to ask yourself a question on why you go looking for information the way you do.
Do you consume what you consume to feel secure in something you already think?
Or do you do it with a genuine desire to learn more about a subject, regardless of what your personal opinion may be on the topic?
Do you even know (or will ever know) enough to have a genuinely informed opinion, beyond what you Ego will incline you to invest in based on your own sense of self and/or empathy?
You feel how you feel, you think what you think.
Acknowledging those in yourself, and stepping past them when necessary is a start.
Encouraging the other side of the conversation to do that same is an even better one.
Ask yourself why you feel and think that way, and what content you consume to either challenge, expand or reinforce those beliefs is how we confront confirmation bias.
Otherwise we stay ego driven, and get very little done in cooperation with other people who want to do the right thing, but likely have a different perspective than you.
In a way, confirmation bias is the opposite of empathy. Without empathy, appreciating someone else’s perspective won’t happen. Without appreciation of perspective, without some understanding, a stalemate is the best we can hope for.
And that’s a pretty lame hope when it comes to lives… Aim higher guys.
Be kind. Be smart. Be your best you. No bar fights.
“People put a lot less effort into picking apart evidence that confirms what they already believe.” Peter Watts
Commentaires