Bias – Part 2

As noted previously, within the context of practical critical thinking the best way to deal with biases is to be upfront about them while simultaneously keeping bias in perspective. With that in mind, I have a set of biases you should be aware of when looking over anything written in this blog.

Starting from the most universal, I (like other human beings) have cognitive biases wired into my brain. The most notable of these is confirmation bias (i.e., the desire to believe facts and arguments that correlate with pre-existing beliefs and opinions and be skeptical or reject those that do not). Because this global set of biases impacts everyone (including you and everyone you know), they should not be considered particular to me and this blog, but instead represent something that we should all be aware of as we listen to other voices (as well as our own).

Moving one level down from humanity in its entirety, each of us also fall into broad subsets of the general category “human being.” For example, in addition to being a human I am also a white, heterosexual, middle-class, American, Jewish male.

Now there is no question that my membership in these (and other) categories provides a lens through which I view the world. And some people feel that these categories come so loaded with biases that all other factors pale to insignificance. But if that were the case, then there would be little to no difference in the political opinions between the Yippie radical Abbie Hoffman (a white, Jewish, American, male) and Commentary Founder Norman Podhortz (another white, Jewish, American, male). So while factors such as race, nationality and gender should not be ignored when we think about our own opinions and evaluate the biases of others, evidence does not seem to warrant presupposing that membership in these broad categories determines agreement on all (or even many) issues.

With those category biases put into perspective, I can think of two specific personal biases worth putting on your radar.

First, in every US Presidential election I have voted in since 1980 I have voted for the Democratic candidate. This doesn’t mean that I would never nor could never vote for a Republican, but given the visceral internal response I felt when I cast my vote for a Republican Senatorial candidate in the last election, it would be dishonest to claim that each and every one of my Presidential votes was solely the result of impartial, rational, analysis vs. some sort of emotion-informed party loyalty that has strong implications for bias.

The second admission has to do with a particular political issue, rather than a particular party. While there are a number of political matters on which I have an opinion, few of these come with enough of an emotional attachment that would raise them to the level of a belief or cause that should trigger bias alarms. But on one issue (the Middle East conflict), I do have a firm position (I am a strong supporter of Israel). Now topics related to the Middle East (or foreign policy in general) might not emerge on this blog for weeks or months. But if they do, you should keep in mind the specific bias I bring to the table since (like my party-based voting history) I will be particularly sensitive to them as I try to look at next year’s election from the perspective of critical reasoning.

As you look through this list of general and specific biases, notice how they have been categorized and prioritized, with specific biases taking precedent over general ones, and general ones that definitely impact critical thinking ability (like cognitive biases) taking precedent over category biases (such as those related to race or gender) that may or may not come with a set of obviously predictable pre-dispositions relevant to this discussion.

And just as individual biases need to be placed into perspective, so to the whole notion of bias sits alongside other things that can impact the quality of our thinking. For example, information we use to create the premises for our arguments could be irrelevant, incomplete or out of date (even if it comes from completely unbiased sources). And even if we start with unblemished source material, faulty logic could lead us to poor conclusions.

Still, bias is enough of a serious issue with regard to discussions of politics that some sort of rule-of-thumb could be helpful in guiding us. And we’ll turn to my favorite tool of this type in the next posting: the Principle of Charity.