Confirmation and other psychological biases: Are they worse on the left or right? (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

Over the past couple of years it's become evident to me that human psychology is more important than rational objectivity in today's politics.  Trump understands this acutely and, in my opinion, perpetually takes advantage of weaknesses in our psyche to increase his political capital.  I personally believe those on the right tend to be more easily manipulated, but acknowledge my own potential biases that may have led to that conclusion.  Thus, I'm curious how others view the way politicians may be manipulating us and which side of the aisle might be more easily manipulated.

 

[Kal El]

Honestly, I think it varies from person to person. I believe there's a bit more groupthink on the right side of the aisle, hence why it's so common to see the same talking points recycled no matter how often they get disproven.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Due to a standard human bias common to people on both sides, it is obvious that the other side is way more biased.

 

[Kal El]

Due to a standard human bias common to people on both sides, it is obvious that the other side is way more biased.

What if we try to overcome our biases? I grew up Republican, as did my family, now we're independents. I think admitting that there is a bias is a step in the right direction.

 

[kface]

It varies from person to person but way worse on the right if you ask me

When you think climate change is a conspiracy theory then you are in trouble 

 

[MTskibum]

It is equal on both sides.

Is this thread created just to troll the handful of people on the right that post on this site? Because that is what it looks like from the first few replies.

 

[Max Power]

It is equal on both sides.

Is this thread created just to troll the handful of people on the right that post on this site? Because that is what it looks like from the first few replies.

New here... eh?

 

[Captain Cranks]

It is equal on both sides.

Is this thread created just to troll the handful of people on the right that post on this site? Because that is what it looks like from the first few replies.

Let's take climate change, for example.  There's a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real.  Many on the right ignore this information and focus on the far fewer opinions that it's not.  What would you say is an equivalent example of confirmation bias on the left?  I'm not being snarky.  I genuinely want to know what your perspective is.   

 

[MTskibum]

Let's take climate change, for example.  There's a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real.  Many on the right ignore this information and focus on the far fewer opinions that it's not.  What would you say is an equivalent example of confirmation bias on the left?  I'm not being snarky.  I genuinely want to know what your perspective is.   

Gmo food, I think this will be critical to feed our growing population, many on the left oppose it for no reason.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gmo food, I think this will be critical to feed our growing population, many on the left oppose it for no reason.

Also nuclear power. 

 

[Kal El]

Gmo food, I think this will be critical to feed our growing population, many on the left oppose it for no reason.

Counterpoint: a huge amount of food is used for biofuels or is outright wasted(I can't remember who posted the numbers here before but I believe it was north of 30% of all food is wasted), the production is there, we need less processed foods and a lot less sugar.

 

[wikkidpissah]

there is a wide panoply of pluralistic, often-ridiculous clubs outside the Republican Party. the Democratic Party and the undecideds are about one-third populated by these clubs and two-thirds by unwrangled cats & cherry-pickers who take li'l bits from columns A-Z and comprise as satisfactorily holistic a view of life & politics as they can. 

the GOP is a club, only exists as a club, is the answer against pluralism - a corral of velvet ropes where folks can know planks, pledges & purpose as one and count on a membership of like-minded with to commiserate about the dangers of "others". i expect little between confirmation and condemnation from a Republican.

throughout most my life, the thousand non-GOP clubs each comprised approximately a third of the population as the one GOP club and those in-between the last third. because Republicans are better organized, i would say the %s are closer to 40-25-35 now.

i find all the clubs equally ridiculous & confirmational, btw. but the GOP club dwarfs the next-largest club (African-Americans? Hillaryheads? wokewalkers?) by a factor of significant multiples. Trump psychosis has coalitioned more non-GOP clubs than i've seen since hippie days

 

[MTskibum]

Counterpoint: a huge amount of food is used for biofuels or is outright wasted(I can't remember who posted the numbers here before but I believe it was north of 30% of all food is wasted), the production is there, we need less processed foods and a lot less sugar.

You will not find a bigger opponent to corn ethanol than me.

I was not talking to feed the US, but more on a global scale to finally solve world hunger. The technology is within our grasp.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Gmo food, I think this will be critical to feed our growing population, many on the left oppose it for no reason.

Is that a well known stance that the left has?  I'm not doubting it, I am just not the familiar with it.  It doesn't seem as obvious as the stance that the right has towards climate change.

 

[Stealthycat]

I personally believe those on the right tend to be more easily manipulated, but acknowledge my own potential biases that may have led to that conclusion.

of course

nobody wants to say they can be easily manipulated right ?

 

[Captain Cranks]

of course

nobody wants to say they can be easily manipulated right ?

Sure...which is why I'm trying to find which opinions may have been swayed by manipulation rather than objective analysis.  So far I feel like I'm on the right side of global warming, GMOs, and nuclear power.  I'm more of an independent  and may have an easier time vetting the horse#### from both sides.  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Humans are gonna human.  Everyone is biased and has blind spots.

 

[Kal El]

You will not find a bigger opponent to corn ethanol than me.

I was not talking to feed the US, but more on a global scale to finally solve world hunger. The technology is within our grasp.

If we're getting technical, the very basis of agriculture is genetically modifying otherwise wild plants to produce more food. That means literally everything we eat from a farm is genetically modified. But that's only if we want to get technical.

More to the point, I looked up the numbers, and anywhere from 30-40% of our food is wasted, meaning that if all of our food was consumed, we could support a population of about half a billion, instead of the 330 million currently, some of which still go hungry here. I haven't looked up worldwide numbers, but the logistics of feeding 8 billion is difficult, especially considering disease, corruption of the people distributing food, and other reasons. I'm wary of genetically modifying food further, because of possible harmful effects to us as a species in the long run. One good thing about climate change is that temperate zones could expand, meaning that there could be more arable farmland, but that's no guarantee, since weather patterns can change pretty quickly.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think they're pretty similar in level of bias, it just so happens that one side is letting its bias confirm things that are significantly less grounded in objective reality.  

 

[jon_mx]

Let's take climate change, for example.  There's a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real.  Many on the right ignore this information and focus on the far fewer opinions that it's not.  What would you say is an equivalent example of confirmation bias on the left?  I'm not being snarky.  I genuinely want to know what your perspective is.   

Bigotry.  The left sees it everywhere and are constantly jumping to false conclusions. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Again the notion that an opposing side is a different, lesser species. 

I personally believe those on the right tend to be more easily manipulated, but acknowledge my own potential biases that may have led to that conclusion.

It's super that you account for your own bias and allow that it might be responsible for that conclusion. Allow me to erase any doubt for you that conservatives and liberals are both just as easily manipulated...

All of them are humans.

The fact this discussion is allowed here with affirmative replies is ridiculous. What the heck is going on here?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let's take climate change, for example.  There's a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real.  Many on the right ignore this information and focus on the far fewer opinions that it's not.  What would you say is an equivalent example of confirmation bias on the left?  I'm not being snarky.  I genuinely want to know what your perspective is.   

Much more controversially, there is a tendency on the left not even to entertain the possibility of population-level sex differences in cognitive ability.  Which is weird when you think about it.  Men and women inhabit bodies that are awash in hormones known to affect behavior and mood.  It would be strange and surprising if that didn't carry over into other areas of brain function.  

 

[HellToupee]

boof sidez

 

[Captain Cranks]

Much more controversially, there is a tendency on the left not even to entertain the possibility of population-level sex differences in cognitive ability.  Which is weird when you think about it.  Men and women inhabit bodies that are awash in hormones known to affect behavior and mood.  It would be strange and surprising if that didn't carry over into other areas of brain function.  

I realize I can google it myself, but can you refer me to a specific incidence of this tendency?  While I often find myself in liberal circles, I don't think I've ever heard someone say they believe men and women have the same cognitive abilities.  

 

[munga30]

If we're getting technical, the very basis of agriculture is genetically modifying otherwise wild plants to produce more food. That means literally everything we eat from a farm is genetically modified. But that's only if we want to get technical.

More to the point, I looked up the numbers, and anywhere from 30-40% of our food is wasted, meaning that if all of our food was consumed, we could support a population of about half a billion, instead of the 330 million currently, some of which still go hungry here. I haven't looked up worldwide numbers, but the logistics of feeding 8 billion is difficult, especially considering disease, corruption of the people distributing food, and other reasons. I'm wary of genetically modifying food further, because of possible harmful effects to us as a species in the long run. One good thing about climate change is that temperate zones could expand, meaning that there could be more arable farmland, but that's no guarantee, since weather patterns can change pretty quickly.

Would you start or bump a food waste thread, please?  I'd be interested in learning more.  But I also have some suspicions about your sources.  Bias!*

* in the manner of "Science!"

 

[Henry Ford]

Much more controversially, there is a tendency on the left not even to entertain the possibility of population-level sex differences in cognitive ability.  Which is weird when you think about it.  Men and women inhabit bodies that are awash in hormones known to affect behavior and mood.  It would be strange and surprising if that didn't carry over into other areas of brain function.  

Is there?  I've certainly encountered people who say these kinds of population-level differences are a correlation and not causation (potentially caused by nurture and not nature) and those that say that a population-level difference on this level is meaningless in assessing individuals.  I haven't run into many who claim it doesn't exist at all, but admittedly I haven't spent much time on the issue.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I realize I can google it myself, but can you refer me to a specific incidence of this tendency?  While often find myself in liberal circles, I don't think I've ever heard someone say they believe men and women have the same cognitive abilities.  

The whole James Damore flame-up was a high-profile example of this.  More generally, though, it is assumed that any field that skews male must do so because of discrimination, sexism, and misogyny, and it can't possibly be due to preferences or variance.  (Fields that skew female are literally never subject to this sort of critique.  It's always "How come there aren't more women in engineering?" and never "Why aren't there more men in nursing?") 

 

[Van Dyman]

Would you start or bump a food waste thread, please?  I'd be interested in learning more.  But I also have some suspicions about your sources.  Bias!*

* in the manner of "Science!"

 Dude! That is perfect. The guy who says "Science!" in that song...

Magnus Alfred Pyke OBE FRSE FRIC (29 December 1908 – 19 October 1992) was an English nutritional scientist, governmental scientific advisor, writer and presenter. He worked for the UK Ministry of Food, the post-war Allied Commission for Austria, and different food manufacturers. 

 

[Kal El]

Would you start or bump a food waste thread, please?  I'd be interested in learning more.  But I also have some suspicions about your sources.  Bias!*

* in the manner of "Science!"

I'll at least give it some thought, not sure how it would fare in the PSF, but my sources are simple google searches about food waste and what the current population of the United States is. Most of what I'm talking about are variables that are rarely controlled.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Due to a standard human bias common to people on both sides, it is obvious that the other side is way more biased.

I think this is absolutely the answer. I think bias is a human issue. Not a Republican or Democratic issue. 

 

[mr roboto]

People believe based on...

What they were taught growing up. 
 

What is most pleasing/convenient/advantageous to them personally in the short term. 
 

What ‘their side/tribe/religion/group’ most rewards them for believing. 
 

There is far too much hope put in people looking at facts dispassionately and going through a process of evaluation to try to find a rational conclusion then aligning their beliefs to these conclusions. This is not typical human behavior. We are wired toward self preservation and confirmation bias. 
 

Right now, politically, this is more acutely obvious on the right. This doesn’t mean that the right is inherently more disposed to bias. It’s not. But the party is built to feed bias (certain media outlets) and more harshly punishes those within who don’t tow the line. 

 

[jon_mx]

The need of leftists to post endless threads self-proclaiming their superiority seems to be a pretty good indication the right has nothing on the left when it comes to confirmation bias.  

 

[Endowed]

I'm down with data and science and information and trials and studies. And I'm not talking about polls.

Real easy for me to back the "other side" if the data concluded it would/should make things better for our citizens and future citizens.

One side seems to hate that type of thinking and analysis. 

 

[Endowed]

The need of leftists to post endless threads self-proclaiming their superiority seems to be a pretty good indication the right has nothing on the left when it comes to confirmation bias.  

The inferior need to up their game.

Bootstraps!

 

[Terminalxylem]

Gmo food, I think this will be critical to feed our growing population, many on the left oppose it for no reason.

Good example. I just heard an NPR piece on GMO foods that was full of sensationalist pseudoscience. 

As to the OP, everyone is susceptible to bias. I'd like to think education lessens it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Bigotry.  The left sees it everywhere and are constantly jumping to false conclusions. 

You think bigotry isn't ubiquitous? 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

You think bigotry isn't ubiquitous? 

All of the characteristics being mentioned are. It's mind-blowing for people to argue otherwise. And people wonder why everyone is so dug in. It's because people have the audacity to think only the people whose political leanings opposite theirs are guilty of these flaws. Seemingly intelligent people here stating their cases of superiority. Vote for the person, not the party. Because if you pull a party lever, you're 100%, stone cold, lead pipe lock guaranteed to vote for a significant number of awful people. You'll make some mistakes voting case by case on individuals but at least you will have tried to have an understanding of the person you're trying to put in office.

 

[Terminalxylem]

All of the characteristics being mentioned are. It's mind-blowing for people to argue otherwise. And people wonder why everyone is so dug in. It's because people have the audacity to think only the people whose political leanings opposite theirs are guilty of these flaws. Seemingly intelligent people here stating their cases of superiority. Vote for the person, not the party. Because if you pull a party lever, you're 100%, stone cold, lead pipe lock guaranteed to vote for a significant number of awful people. You'll make some mistakes voting case by case on individuals but at least you will have tried to have an understanding of the person you're trying to put in office.

Sure. I really dislike the premise of this thread, because it just promotes divisiveness. That being said, it's certainly possible one group is more prone to certain biases than others.

But my response was genuine surprise at the suggestion that bigotry isn't commonplace. Heck, this thread and most of the PSF are prime examples.

 

[jon_mx]

You think bigotry isn't ubiquitous? 

I see the early narratives of many if not most of incidents concerning race tend to be largely wrong in part or entirely.  From Micheal Brown to Trevon Martin to the beer summit incident to Micheal Bennett to Jussie Smollett.  Many of the conclusions and assumptions in the early reporting were just wrong.  The tendency is to believe the minority victim's story hook line and sinker when the reality ends up significantly different.  

 

[Terminalxylem]

I see the early narratives of many if not most of incidents concerning race tend to be largely wrong in part or entirely.  From Micheal Brown to Trevon Martin to the beer summit incident to Micheal Bennett to Jussie Smollett.  Many of the conclusions and assumptions in the early reporting were just wrong.  The tendency is to believe the minority victim's story hook line and sinker when the reality ends up significantly different.  

Bigotry doesn’t just refer to race.

 

[jon_mx]

Bigotry doesn’t just refer to race.

No, but my examples all dealt with race.  I think the notion that women's rape allegations must always be believed is bigotry.   I got called every name in the book in here for suggesting Ford was acting politically in her allegations against Kavanaugh.  Just recently Ford's own lawyer stated she was motivated in wanting to protect abortion.  But the media and the local majority all insisted women have no reason to lie and don't.  

 

[zoonation]

Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, has some degree of bias.  

But an argument stands or falls based on the merits.