By Ben-Buckley
If you want to know the truth about something, you should look at the raw facts and figures with as little bias as possible, and allow your conclusion to emerge naturally from the data. This may seem obvious, but it’s easier said than done; there are many ways in which our culture encourages us to form an opinion first, and then justify it later.
For example, many of us were taught in high school to write essays by first choosing a thesis statement, then researching the topic for facts to defend that thesis, and finally putting it all together in a final draft. This always bothered me as a student. After all, what if, upon researching the topic, you find your initial conceptions were completely wrong? This method of essay writing teaches students to decide what their opinion is, and then cherry-pick the literature for data that supports their thesis.
Computer programmer and essayist Paul Graham writes about the origin of this method of teaching in his article “The Age of the Essay.” Modern English composition classes have their roots in medieval universities, where lawyers were trained in the methods of defending a predefined position. To quote Graham, “defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it’s not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit.”
The “thesis first, facts later” approach to essays appeals to what psychologists call the “confirmation bias.” Once a person has decided what they believe, they will tend to notice evidence that supports their position and ignore evidence that contradicts it. As Neil Gaiman explains it, “decide the universe is, say, run by secret enormous teddy bears, and I can guarantee you’ll immediately start running across evidence that this is true.”
It’s little wonder, then, that many people think of debates as battles in which the primary purpose is to win against your opponent. Facts and arguments are nothing but useful artillery, and differing positions are just sides in a fight.
This is how debates are often presented in TV and radio talk shows. Everyone picks a position the same way in which they’d pick a sports team, and then grasps at whatever arguments they can to support their side. But reality is not made up of teams, and the act of developing arguments in favour of a position does nothing to make that position true.
How do we fight the confirmation bias? One idea is to take a clue from how scientists test a hypothesis by experimentation. A well designed experiment is setup to try to disprove the hypothesis. That way, if the experiment confirms the hypothesis, it’s unlikely to have happened by accident.
So, if you want to have a more accurate view of the world, you should recognize when you believe something that might cause you to be biased, and instead of trying to prove yourself right, test your beliefs by looking for ways you can be proven wrong
