What We Think We Know
Image via Wikipedia
Victoria Pynchon, over at her blog on Negotiation, has an interesting application of confirmation bias.
She writes:
I watched the debate last night with people who support my candidate.
They all also happened to be mediators, so they understand concepts like confirmation bias --the tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
... I missed statements made by McCain entirely. It was if I hadn't even heard them. I was listening to confirm that which I already believed, which means I screened out what didn't fit my view of McCain or Obama and highlighted those statements that confirmed my existing beliefs.
I disagree with Victoria's conclusion that nothing is objective, but bridging this type of divide is difficult.
Consider what Tracy Coenen writes about Obama at her website.
I think Tracy has done some great work on exposing the deceit behind many MLM schemes. But, I don't find the email she has on webpage a serious examination about Obama. For, me it borders on repugnant.
But, supposing I am wrong and Tracy is right- how would we bridge the divide? I am not going acknowledge the truth of these statements, given my mindset, and can bring up good reasons to doubt the conclusions. But, would we ever get to a rational agreement? I suspect not, which shows something of the power of the confirmation bias.
The philosophical liberal line here, as opposed to the political liberal value line, is that there are significant expressions of value and collectivity that cannot be reconciled, but that we have to find agreement without giving in. Which is what we need mediators for.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=43b81e13-d474-4c90-b13f-e9c5712d2998)
Comments
Vickie, I am going to do a post on a Scott Plous article shortly. He is a very smart social psychologist who had a great idea about how to model an example of this type of conflict.
Hope this makes my view more clear.
I think that you are wrong about erring on side subjectivism, but will look forward to your comments.
Posted by: admin
|
October 25, 2008 2:00 AM
The "objective" fact would be that we had come to different conclusions. Although further digging might reveal that we actually have come to the SAME conclusion but have misunderstood some of the factors at play in the problem. I don't want to get all metaphysical here, just to say that if people understood just how subjective most of their opinions and perceptions are, the better off we'd all be in trying to find common ground. There's little chance that erring on the side of subjectivism is going to do harm in a world in which 99% of the people believe what they see to be "the truth."
Posted by: Vickie Pynchon | October 22, 2008 2:01 PM
Vickie, this is an excellent question. I have a short answer and a long answer, which will probably turn into a post on the topic.
My short answer is this. The objective data might radically undermine our judgments, that is you and I could look at the same data and legitimately come to different conclusions, and have equal rational authority for doing so.
(The philosopher Quine argued for this conclusion in the mid 50's regarding what we could conclude about what objects existed.)
But that would be an objective fact - there would be nothing subjective about the fact you and I came to equally persuasive and correct conclusions.
While, I am sure this sounds like a cheat, I believe that there is a substantial point to be made.
For mediators, to come to this overall objective view is important: trades are only possible between people with asymmetric preferences.
Hope this helps explain my thoughts. Will try to follow up with a longer post, shortly.
Posted by: admin
|
October 21, 2008 2:04 PM
M - U may hv continuing objection that you don't agree with anything I say! But seriously, how could there be objective truth when what we perceive can only be received through our subjective - limited and flawed - perceptions? We can choose to believe that some things are true and some false but certainty of viewpoint likely the most destructive force in human relations. There's always an unverifiable first principle under every set of understandings
Posted by: vickie | October 21, 2008 11:59 AM