Instead of posting my stance on topics of the day, it has come to my attention that the general American public is awful at arguing, debating and recognizing their own biases and logical fallacies. So this is going to be a quick study guide on how to argue on Facebook. For this post, I will concentrate on natural biases that we all harbor. Regardless of your level of intelligence, everyone struggles to overcome these biases but if you are aware of them, you can diminish their effects in discussions with your friends and enemies on Facebook.
First, what is a cognitive bias?
A cognitive bias is defined as a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them and it affects the decisions and judgments that they make.
There are dozens of known biases and I will provide links below that list them but basically biases come from our brains’ desire to efficiently make shortcuts in decision making. This causes us to make faulty assumptions and arguments based on unreliable information and a warped view of the world. Most of the time, biases don’t cause much harm and they may have many benefits in keeping us alive but they can also discredit it us and cause us to be stuck in toxic worldview. Below I’ve outlined only a couple of common biases, if you find yourself hanging your head in shame at recognition that you do these some or all of the time. Don’t feel bad. I do too. And so does everyone. It takes practice to recognize when others are using them and even more self awareness to recognize when you are stuck in a cognitive bias box.
Confirmation bias
Also metaphorically referred to as the echo chamber. This bias revolves around our brains desire to hold onto the truths it already believes. The result of this desire is an individual seeks out information that agrees with how they already think. They read articles and data that agrees with them and avoids information that disagrees with them. You might surround yourself with friends that agree with you and simply block and ignore people who disagree with you or represent the opposite viewpoint as your own. Social media is often accused of reinforcing confirmation bias. Due the ease with which you can control the information you see and the algorithms used to show you things you will already agree with. And even if you are aware that confirmation bias is an intimate part of how you think, it can be difficult to combat. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist stated in his masterclass that he often reads books about topics that are in direct opposition to his current worldview. He stated that he reads books on astrology and aliens to make sure that he not only understands how others think but that he is continually challenging his confirmation bias. The trick however is that it isn’t enough to simply read things that you assume you might disagree with it; you must read and listen with an open mind. You must almost hope that what you’re reading will change your mind and work to let it. And if you really want to combat your confirmation bias, take on the arguments of the worldview in opposition to you and argue in their favor in a constructive way. If you can truly think from the opposite perspective of your own, you will see the glaring holes in your own arguements and either adjust how you think or you will patch those holes up. Essentially, you will not know that your foundation is strong until you challenge it. It can be painful at first but the goal here is to have the most accurate way of viewing the world as possible and not to be someone who is stuck in their ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Polarization Effect
Associated with confirmation bias is the polarization effect on opinion. This effect is what occurs as a byproduct to confirmation bias. When given information that is opposed to your current worldview, your natural tendency is to reject the information and reinforce your current held opinion. Studies have shown that if your opinion is actively stated or written, then you become more stubborn in solidifying your worldview due to the open commitment (maybe this is why we still get married and announce relationships publicly but that is a different topic). Announcing your opinion can then increase the problem of the polarization effect. This is an attempt to battle confirmation bias gone wrong. It occurs because the subject is only listening out of obligation to prove that they are still right and not with an open mind genuinly seeking to learn. If information, opinions or data are not considered from an unbiased perspective, you will only deepen your resolve. If the other person also exhibits the polarization effect, they will only deepen their resolve. And now you have two parties that believe in their viewpoint beyond what is reasonable. On a small scale, this tendency isn’t such a bad thing. But these polarizations and confirmation biases can have widespread affects on policy and cause mass genocides. Why did the nazi extermination of the jews happen? Confirmation bias and polarization of opinion. Why were millions of African Americans enslaved, requiring a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people to end that slavery? Confirmation bias and polarization of opinion. If you hear someone else’s point of view and it doesnt cause you to question yours even a little but rather causes you to cross your arms and proclaim that now you believe even harder! Then guess what, you are a part of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization#Attitude_polarization
The Dunning Kruger Effect
Basically stated, it suggests that the more you know the less confident you are while the less you know, the more confident you are. It sounds rather simple but this is an actual studied effect that is a part of human psychology. On topics of controversy, it is often the experts or people who are well versed in the topic that stay silent or regularly admit to not knowing everything. While people with little to no knowledge or direct experience seem to go on for ages about their opinion that has excessively oversimplified a complex issue.
For example
Man: Why dont women who were raped just take Plan B if they dont want the baby?
White person: why dont black people just not commit crimes and then the cops wont be mean to them?
These oversimplified opinions are not unique or ground breaking they merely reveal your complete and utter lack of ability to think about a perspective outside of your own. No everyone is not entitled to their opinion. Especially if that opinion is the first ill informed thing that vomited out of your mouth.
The question to ask yourself before you go into a topic is to ask yourself what about my experience gives me a credible opinion on this matter? If I argue for rights for immigrants is it because I’ve read books and books on how immigration impacts a country, have I talked to hundreds of immigrants and asked what they wanted or needed or why they emigrated in the first place? Or am I talking from a place of fear because of a single article I read online while living hundreds of miles away from densely populated cities with immigrants? If you only know one person that has immigrated to the United States and argue in favor of her experience, guess what you dont have enough information either. The trick is to enter debates seeking to understand and gain information coming from a place of where you constantly acknowle that it is likely that you do not know enough yet.
For my dancers out there, this effect also translates to abilities and skills. If you’ve ever asked someone to dance and they responded with, “Do you even know how to dance?” and you kind if pause, thinking well, there are definitely people better then me. I have a lot to learn so it’s possible she/he is better than me. After considering this you answer “I’m alright.” and she/he begrudgingly agrees to dance with you and proceeds to be the one of the worst dancers you’ve ever danced with, then you are dancing with someone who has fallen under the Danning-Kruger Effect.
The general way to overcome this is to realize that your ability or knowledge on a topic is almost always lower than what you think it is.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
This error is the tendency to believe that what people do reflects their character or who they are while what you do is merely a reflection of the circumstances or the situation imposed on you. A very classic explanation of this is when someone cuts you off in traffic, your immediate thought is that they are a jerk or a bad driver but when you cut someone off, you excuse it because you are late to work or you had to make your exit or your wife is giving birth and you’re going to miss it. In this instance, the Error is mostly harmless, however, it can have overarching effects on our judgments of others. If you believe cop violence is enacted only on bad people who have committed crime but if you were in a similar situation facing the cops and being mistreated you wouldn’t attribute their mistreatment due to your crime or perceived crime, you would postulate that the cops were corrupt. Or you might even dismiss your crime as necessary for survival. If you believe the cops’ actions were due to them having a mental illness or being a bad person but then you as a cop, dismiss mistakes and situations that were overly charged emotionally and that you are tired and haven’t been trained correctly then you are falling under the spell of the fundamental attribution error.
Or if you see someone being abused by their husbands and you state that they must just be weak or lazy to not leave.
If you see a man abusing his wife, you might simply state that he is a bad person and that is why he is hitting her.
In this way, complex social issues are often pinned on a single individual and ignored instead of dealt with on a larger scale.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/fundamental-attribution.html
Closed System 