User blog:Bromley/Confirmation Bias: everything "What's wrong with the world" (aka "to a hammer everything is a nail")

GK Chesterton noted that the "upshot" of the title of his study of "What is Wrong with the World" is that "What is wrong is that we do not ask what is right" (see https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1717/1717-h/1717-h.htm). Chesterton's lengthily investigates the social and economic ills of 1912 England and their right and wrong solutions, much of which is still wrong in the world today. Nevertheless, we can take most seriously that of his introduction, "What is wrong is that we do not ask what is right" -- and we will indeed find so much wrong about and around us.

Alas, to know what is "right" is the problem. 17th century poet John Milton argued that truth (what is right) can only be known by God, thus men can only approach it, but always with error (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica). We are limited by incomplete and inadequate senses and reason, so what we think we know is impossibly and necessarily short of reality. Yet, we must not shy from the search for truth, which, as Milton warns, is limited by human error -- limits aggravated by human arrogance that it knows right and wrong. Milton thereby defends free speech, noting that it is only through error that we can approach truth (never reaching it), so to shut down an idea is to shut down the search for truth.

In a similar way, our biases distort our ability to see realities and truths beyond what we already believe. Known as "confirmation bias," our reason and even our senses are limited by what we already expect to see or hear. A famous example is seen in this video: https://youtu.be/MFBrCM_WYXw (go watch it now, then come back...) Another example would be a leading question in a court trial, whereby an attorney puts the desired answer in a question to a witness, such as, "Did you see much the broken glass?" (the question assumes that there was broken glass, so it is a "leading question.") In both examples, the observer (or witness) is given information ahead of the question before formulating a response, and that information biases the answer. In other words, that information creates a "confirmation bias" that shapes the perception or answer.

Unfortunately, we humans don't need trick instructions or leading questions to engage in confirmation bias. The best way to describe our distorted condition is that we find what we already want to find. If you went into the movie thinking it's awful, you're likely to find it awful, as that's what you expected to see. Or, if you ask a Texan who is visiting Minnesota in the winter if it's cold, he's likely to find it cold out, even if to the Minnesotans it's not particularly cold that day. To the Texan, anything north of Texas is cold.

As such, we lead our lives like the hammer for which everything is a nail -- which is okay, on a construction site. But when we are dealing with human interactions, our pre-held biases can destroy those relations. The worst case is politics. Partisan views ought to inform people of how to approach civil society. For example, it is natural that someone with deep concerns for the welfare of others will see a different solution to homelessness than another person whose perceptions are driven by economics; where the one sees a person in need of a roof, the other sees someone without a job. Both perspectives are valid, and the role of politics is to sort out priorities from the diverse points of view as represented in the government.

However, it becomes absolute poison when those points of view go beyond informing opinion towards shaping, and, worse, fully defining it. As such, the homeless advocate might resent those with better living conditions than those who don't have a home, and then call for policies that punish homeowners, such as eliminating vagrancy laws that would otherwise protect private property from encroachment by the homeless. Similarly, someone for whom everything is economic incentives may push for laws that criminalize homelessness, perhaps in the name of "getting them a job" when many are homeless precisely because of an inability to hold a job.

The debate should be healthy -- each side to make its case, but when neither side can even hear the other over their own confirmation biases, it's just yelling into echo chambers in which they hear only themselves.

If we take seriously Chesterton's admonition to seek "what is right" while heeding Milton's warning that we are incapable of actually knowing it, then we must adhere to both: "what is right" must be more important than what we believe, and what we believe must not blind us to listening to what others believe.