Bias - Part 1

One of the few concepts highlighted as much in discussions of both critical thinking and politics is the subject of bias.

Whether one is studying information literacy, media literacy or even critical thinking as a standalone topic, the ability to spot bias is of primary importance with regard to analyzing information sources. And this makes perfect sense, given that problematic premises (due to biased sources or some other shortcoming) can lead to faulty conclusions, regardless of the quality of the logic linking the former with the latter.

The reason bias is such a frequent topic of conversation outside of critical thinking studies (whether in the context of politics or other matters) is because it is an issue all of us grasp intuitively. Unlike other critical-thinking tools (such as logic), bias is something that so permeates and surrounds us that most of us simply “know it when we see it” (especially when we see it in others).

One of the reasons for the ubiquity of bias is that human beings as a species suffer from certain types of biases, notably cognitive biases. We are all hard wired, for example, to see patterns. And while this pattern-seeking bias can be harnessed by reason to create powerful tools such as science, it can just as easily lead to error (based on seeing patterns where none actually exist), or inform superstition (such as spotting a revered religious figure in a water-stained wall or pattern of pizza toppings).

The most significant human bias that impacts how we think about politics is confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and believe information that conforms to existing pre-conceptions and dismiss or reject information that challenges these closely held beliefs.

As Kevin deLaplante describes in #14 of this podcast (and I highly recommend you listen to his entire series), systems such as science have developed tools and processes to try to overcome confirmation bias (via experiments such as double-blind tests). But politics has no similar formal filters, meaning that most of us still gravitate towards and accept those newspapers, radio and TV shows, blogs and other online sources that tell us what we want to hear, while dismissing comparable media sources that we don’t agree with as horrifically and embarrassingly biased.

This is a pity since both bias itself and inappropriate ways of trying to compensate for bias can lead to error.

Most people, for example, simply embrace their biases (even as they construct elaborate mechanisms to convince themselves that both they and their news sources are “fair and balanced”). But in addition to closing the mind, this combination of bias and self-deception leaves one vulnerable to (among other negative consequences) surprise and disappointment. (Think of someone who dismisses sex scandal allegations against a favored candidate because charges first appear in a news source beloved by “the other side,” only to watch their candidate – and their own hopes - implode when those charges turn out to be true.)

Another common mistake is to assume that since everyone is biased (which we all are, at least with regard to hard-wired human cognitive biases) that no one is in a position to either claim truth or judge others. For example, much of what we call “political correctness” could more accurately be described as an ineffective means of dealing with the problem of bias. For if we believe that our own race, nationality, gender and class comes so loaded with associated biases that we cannot presume to judge those of another race, nationality, gender or class we are actually closing our minds to actually understanding others (as well as leaving ourselves vulnerable to deception or demagoguery).

So how should we deal with the problem of bias in a way that is not crippling? Within the framework of practical critical thinking, this is a matter of accurately perceiving and recognizing sources of bias within ourselves and others, prioritizing them appropriately, and taking them into account (but not being overwhelmed by them) as you process information and form judgments.

To give you a sense of what that might look like, in my next post I shall provide you a rundown of biases I am bringing to the table that you should be aware of as you read through (and hopefully think about and discuss) this and other topics between now and Election Day.