Confirmation Bias – A New Personality Disorder?

Intro:  Yesterday, I read an excellent post by Robert on his blog Seven Spheres, which was on the topic of confirmation bias.  You should check out his blog because there are some really great posts on a whole range of topics about what makes this world tick.  His post reminded me of an article I posted on LinkedIn last year, and I thought I would include it on my blog.  Confirmation bias is something we should all think about, because it affects our judgments and decisions daily and we probably don’t even realize it.  Please read on . . .

***

I recently read an article titled: “Legal Ethics and Confirmation Bias.” The article begins its trek with a brief overview of how the practice of law is governed by its professional rules of conduct, provides a very good definition of “confirmation bias,” and then diverts down the road less traveled attempting to correlate racial discrimination and advancement within the legal profession. I’m not saying that the author didn’t have a legitimate point, she did. I would just like to address the elephant in the room she skillfully avoided and diverge down a different trail.

The definition of “confirmation bias,” as provided by the author, is “a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or under-weigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.” But applying this to a lawyer’s representation of a client, as the author first does (representation that is supposed to be zealous and one-sided in nature), and applying it to the determination of who gets a promotion in a law firm, as the author does next, seems to me to severely limit the application of the two most important words in the definition – “decision makers.” I will be happy to expand that application.

In the context of a discussion of legal ethics, you would think the author would discuss the elephant, or zebra or gorilla if you prefer, namely judges. I can’t think of any more important context than the individuals who “decide” the outcomes of legal disputes. If judges actively seek out information to confirm their biases, even if that behavior is so inherently ingrained they don’t realize what they are doing, as opposed to evaluating evidence openly and objectively, then certainly there will be no “justice” when a decision is rendered. This has, in fact, been one of the chief criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that court exercises complete discretion over the cases it hears, it has been said that they only take cases that they have already decided. If true, I find that frightening in two respects.

First, the high court is not required to clear up discrepancies with the interpretation and application of federal law among the circuits of the federal courts of appeal. Thus, the federal law can be differently applied in different parts of the country – no uniform federal law for the land – and who cares, right, if that is politically expedient. Second, if the highest court only hears cases it desires and has prejudged them, and if confirmation bias permeates all of the judicial system, then there is ample ammunition for the criticism that the courts are purely political entities, with judges being mere puppets doing the bidding of their appointers or electors and not objectively applying the law as it is written. Deciding court cases is not playing pinball; these decisions have dramatic impacts on people’s lives.

Ok, I addressed the elephant, and now for my own divergence.

We first must recognize the obvious – that every individual is a “decision maker.” We all make countless decisions each day, as mundane as how often we brush our teeth or as magnanimous as whether to have children.  Next, there appears to be an overwhelming desire for people to categorize things as being black or white – not in the racial context – but an oversimplification of issues or subject matter. Where in reality there may be thirteen different alternatives, or various shades of gray in between them all, people like to think there is always either an A or B or right or wrong answer. There usually isn’t. Things aren’t that simple and sometimes the answer is all of the above.

In the age of social media this faulty logic has become epidemic, or to use the parlance – “gone viral.” It is, in reality, thinking backwards. People begin with a conclusion and seek out supporting “evidence” to validate themselves. The evidence is often questionable, and the positions fermented are polarizing; based more in inebriated blind faith than in reality.  This leads more to one-sided screaming and incivility than to any type of productive discourse. People have decided they are right, they have their evidence, and they will no longer consider any other contrary evidence. They have integrated their position, on whatever the subject matter may be, so strongly as part of very their own identity that being “right” is necessary to protect that identity – the position has become secondary. Being “wrong” would simply shake them at their core, spin their minds into a state of oblivion. They may even label the countervailing information, even if it is overwhelming, as “fake news” or “lies” or even claim it is “biased,” all the while discounting their own biases or the biases of the sources they consulted – if they had any to begin with. They are so intoxicated with the notion that their ideas are gospel and irrefutable they see no need to even hear any words but their own.

Overconfidence and an inflated view of one’s own self-importance is magnified in cyberspace where people can create their own forums and post with relative anonymity. There are no social repercussions for being rude and inconsiderate or, more to the point, being an asshole online. There is no peer group in the room to subtlety apply pressure to be civil or call out bad behavior – at least, not in a meaningful way. When “conversations” deteriorate to episodes of cyber-rage and the leveling of death threats, which I have experienced all too frequently online, I think we can safely say this is aberrant behavior – worthy of a diagnostic code in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

My advice is simple – wake up from your own delusions, think critically, speak civilly or hold your tongue and listen for a change, and be prepared to admit when you’re wrong – be thrilled to expand your point of view!

 ***

Photo:  I found this picture on the Internet in the public domain.  I could find no other attribution for it.

LinkedIn:  If anyone wants to connect on LinkedIn, you can find me at https://www.linkedin.com/in/haroldstearley/

Update: April 25, 2018 – The ABA Journal just published an article about research demonstrating judicial bias with traditional gender roles, and I discovered an older article about implicit bias.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_expertise_may_correlate_with_more_gender_bias_in_some_cases_study_sa/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/implicit_bias_is_a_challenge_even_for_judges

 

31 thoughts on “Confirmation Bias – A New Personality Disorder?”

  1. Wow, this was a very good read. Confirmation bias vindicates the argument, perhaps, that the death penalty should be outlawed. Once a person’s life is taken, there can be no going back. Not that the jailing of an innocent life is any less excusable. It is frightening: where can people find justice if it is absent from the justice system? We may as well become a world of vigilantes.
    Taking this discussion to our own personal lives is interesting. How often does one make up our mind (based on emotions or maybe social conditioning) about something in a matter of minutes and argue black-and-blue that that’s the truth? When that leads to bullying or worse, it becomes a dangerous problem.
    And you’re right, we should always check we are not ourselves guilty of that since being convinced we are not may actually be a sign that we are. Thanks, got me thinking again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks ! Glad to get you thinking ☺ I like to say we have a legal system, not a justice system. And the death penalty, besides it’s other problems, doesn’t even follow logic. The state is going to teach that killing another person is wrong by killing someone, humm . . . And as you note, sometimes they have an innocent person. BTW, if you are convicted in the circuit court (trial court) you’re screwed. Appellate standards of review are set so high it is rare to get a conviction reversed

      Like

      1. That’s why many people end up going to jail – they can’t afford a good attorney. And people like OJ walk – the LA cops were sloppy and he had a high-priced defense team. Of course, OJ was convicted for a lessor crime later, but the jury’s bias from him being not being convicted for murder played a key role in that conviction – bias is everywhere 🙂

        Like

      2. Bias can work in favour or against you… either way, it is neither objective nor true.
        But sometimes I wonder what in fact is objective, what is true? I suspect perpetrators often do not understand their real motivations, justifying their actions with warped rationale. Truth may be simply an illusion

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Good point about truth. At best it can be what you’re experiencing, in the moment, without any judgment. And bias, interesting thought. If we try to look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, all of these things should relate to survival instincts, so perhaps people take single experiences and project those globally, inappropriate judgment, but maybe it saves your life in a single instance 🙂 But to let it rule your life, or maybe contaminate is a better word, is something else. And if you hold a position in society requiring objectivity, well . . .

        Like

      4. True, but — if only to play devil’s advocate — perhaps those holding important positions in society are also merely responding out of survival instincts. Every step of the way. To stay in power. To preserve/enlarge their empire, so-to-speak. Not to be eaten. Maybe, cynically, that’s the way society is, cave-age or not; maybe that’s the way homo-sapiens have been made

        Liked by 1 person

  2. An excellent article. Any legal representative knows that they can argue as effectively for the defense or the prosecution by framing the ‘facts’ to suit their case, and diminishing those that do not. I confess to have sometimes amused myself by opposing a cherished consensus view, to see how vociferously it will be defended. Often it is apparent, that many people have done very little thinking of their own, and react with uncharacteristic venom when a belief is challenged.
    As Samuel Johnson said:
    Every Man Who Attacks My Belief, Diminishes In Some Degree My Confidence In It, And Therefore Makes Me Uneasy; And I Am Angry With Him Who Makes Me Uneasy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Aaron ! And you make excellent observations about legal counsel. I’ve done the same with challenging other’s beliefs, even if I had no position on the subject, and you’re right about how defensive people can get. Great quote too ! Thanks for your comments

      Liked by 1 person

  3. So the best perspective to take is a confirmation bias that views everyone else operating not by facts but by personal confirmation biases. And so Machiavelli was completely correct, and in order to navigate through life you cannot typically use facts and reason as allies. In fact, truth is often useless!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree. I think we would also have to try to define what truth is. Perhaps a definition would be that it is what you are experiencing in the moment without judgment. But it would nearly impossible for people to experience anything without judging or interpreting based upon prior experience or acquired knowledge. And if the acquired knowledge is false or incomplete, yes the concept of truth becomes useless.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The earth is not flat or the center of the universe. You would think this is a fact based on evidence and yet there are many people that reject this truth. If you are arguing with them with facts, these facts are then useless! You might as well abound on truth and negotiate with them according to their prejudices because otherwise you will lose!

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Thoughtful post. Here’s a potential issue:
    “There are no social repercussions for being rude and inconsiderate or, more to the point, being an asshole online. There is no peer group in the room to subtlety apply pressure to be civil or call out bad behavior – at least, not in a meaningful way.”
    The force of your argument here runs you into trouble.
    In psychiatry, disorders are defined as causing serious social, economic or emotional damage to a person.
    In conceding that these people pay almost no price for their confirmation bias, you preclude it ever becoming a disorder.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s