Motivated Reasoning

One of the areas of continuing interest to me is how people on both sides of the political polarity can be exposed to the same constant information drone and come out vehemently defending opposite positions.  A while ago, I read a paper about faults in human thinking.  In this paper by Sociologist, Steven Hoffman, at the University of Buffalo, he said that we actually seek out information that confirms what we already believe.  This leads to what he calls confirmation and disconfirmation biases.  We sift through the facts and confirm what we believe and disconfirm what we don’t believe.  So far, so good.  But why? 

All of our thoughts have related emotions such as, “I like it or I don’t like it”.  And we tend to like what we already believe and dislike what we don’t.  This makes perfect sense.  What we like, confirms our existing point of view of the world.  What we don’t like, disconfirms it.  So when we read a fact, we automatically accept or dismiss it based on how we feel about it.  This is so obvious when we have political discussions.  They can very quickly turn into arguments because we’re defending our point of view.  We’re not arguing the same facts.  One person is arguing the facts he favors and the other is arguing his.

So when “our” facts are being disputed, we feel like our world view is under attack. In other words, we feel under personal attack.  Add this phenomenon to the modern day reality of the seemingly infinite universe of anonymous, unfiltered, unqualified, un-validated information available through the Internet.  Anybody and everybody can have a platform and publish any kind of “facts” that they can conceive.  We have no way of knowing if they are right or wrong, except…”do we like it or dislike it?”.  A simple example of this in action is the Facebook feature, that allows you to “like” what someone posts. 

In this case, it’s obvious; we usually like our friends.  But what about the more subtle manipulations that politicians use?  A perfect example is how one recent  presidential candidate re-used the tired issue of the president’s “otherness”; the “Birther” question. First, there is no question.  So why would it gain so much attention?  For the same reason all of the other conspiracy theories do; they arouse those who just don’t like this president, no matter what he does or doesn’t do. It was the same with President Bush.  The “mission accomplished” banner was so popular because there were many people who just didn’t like him.   

Presidents are Earthlings like the rest of us.  We all have strengths and weaknesses.  Of course, this fact makes anyone we don’t like, vulnerable.  I remember an old friend of mine saying, “if you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick”.  And in our world of constant news coverage, there are lots of sticks.

So we watch, listen and support the pundits who say what we want to hear and ignore those who don’t.  Consequently, we have the political echo chambers called “talk shows”.  Some people like to watch Fox.  Others like to watch MSNBC.  Why?  Because their points of view are validated.  Of course the problem is that in order to get their ratings up, they pettifog the issues; you know, they use petty details, like birth certificates and banners, to fog up the real issues. 

So what’s happening to the national discourse as a result?  I think you know the answer to that one.  There isn’t one.  What we do have is a nation split down the middle having two separate discourses.  The founders set up a system of checks and balances to protect the citizenry from its government.  That system is broken.  Now we simply have two warring political factions and we, the electorate, suffer the collateral damage.

Robert DeFilippis