Take a Step Back
Don't fall for "confirmation bias."
Psychologists have studied at length the tendency for all of us, swept by the flood of every day’s experience, to hoard any bits and pieces of information that conform to what we already believe. More than that, we have a tendence to accept such information as true, without treating it with the normal skepticism that we have learned to use (for our own safety) to evaluate new information.
They call it confirmation bias. You might want to look it up as it makes interesting reading. I find two different and interesting examples of this in the recent political news.
One is a rather simple matter, but it illustrates the general idea. For example, those that already believed that immigration is having a negative effect on our lives, had less difficulty than the rest of us believing the pet eating stories out of Springfield, Ohio.
This is probably too simple an example. It’s easy for most of us to say we weren’t duped in this way. Let’s try a tougher example. One that is genuinely controversial.
It relates to how we judge one specific proposal out of a larger group of similar proposals. My point is that we judge differently when a plan is the product of a rival political party.
Take the present controversy over student loan debt. Those opposed to a policy of debt forgiveness, argue something like this: they got into the situation and others worked hard to get out and succeeded. It isn’t fair to those who got out, to help those who still owe substantial sums.
I suspect one is more likely to favor this way of looking at the problem if the proposal is being suggested by “the other” political party. I think this view reflects the negativity that we generally feel about that party’s policies, conforming as it does to our general negative view of that political party’s programs.
Let’s ask ourselves, though, how we see might, without such “partisan framing,” view another example of the same kind of problem.
Say you come upon a deep pit in the ground. Several people are trapped inside, i.e. they are unable to climb out. Let’s say they fell in for a combination of reasons. They were old and unstable; they were given bad advice; they were careless, not watching, where they were going. Or maybe just caught up in the moment. I.e. they were clearly partly to blame, or at least some of them were.
Also, you learn that others who were trapped in the same hole managed to get out. You can’t be sure why they succeeded. A little help from a friend? Good luck in their climbing efforts? Better climbing skills? More self-confidence that led to multiple tries?
But does that justify your walking past without helping—because, if some worked hard to get out, shouldn’t the rest? Because helping those who are still trapped would be an insult to those who have managed to get out.
Instead, doesn’t our moral sense urge us to offer help? (They may have fallen among thieves and been thrown into the pit, but you don’t have enough data to be sure of that or any other cause.) I think you will have some compassion for them. And more than that consider how to help get them out.
But forgiving student aid? If it’s the other political party that is proposing solutions, that is trying to solve the problem, you may well “pass by.” This is how confirmation bias works.
We can all be is victims. But we don’t necessarily have to. The danger of psychology is that some read the results of experiments to mean that we, the “subjects” of the experiment, are psychologically trapped. The experiments “prove” that we lose control over our ideas or actions. Not at all. The many biases that psychologist have studied are “tendencies.” We can push back. We should push back.
Look for what is shaping your opinions. We need to evaluate ideas on their merits not on their origin. As a result, we may find ourselves working together in a bipartisan coalition to solve our problems.