My Side Bias; No One is Immune

A new theory called My Side Bias is doing the rounds, although we need another asinine idea like a hole in the head this one raises valid points while it resonates with our times and everybody is guilty, it just depends to what degree.

To break it down: people evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own beliefs, opinions, and attitudes.

Researcher and psychology professor Keith E Stanovich who’s studied this phenomenon closely found unlike other kinds of bias, virtually everyone displays myside bias. It is as evident in politics as it is in academia and it’s rampant on all social media platforms among the Joe Soaps.

More interesting conclusions

Its confirmation bias #101 as people select the information most likely to support their favored position on any topic, with even the numerical display of outcome data interpreted and tipped in the direction of the subject’s prior belief.

Valid syllogisms concluding with; “therefore, marijuana should be legal” are easier for liberals to judge correctly and harder for conservatives; while valid syllogisms concluding with; “therefore, no one has the right to end the life of a fetus” are harder for liberals to judge correctly and easier for conservatives.

Here is the kicker, highly intelligent and highly educated people are more prone to my side bias than other group.

It follows that highly educated people are most likely to believe they thought their way to a specific conclusion, i.e. no bias involved.

They less likely than the average person to appreciate they derive their beliefs from the social groups they belong to and that it fits with their unique temperament and innate psychological makeup.

They also display a fair amount of hubris in their own abilities and fail to recognize that rational does not automatically equate with reason.

Most of all identity politics and the rise of critical theory have accelerated and justified myside bias.

“If myside bias is the fire that has set ablaze the public communications commons to our society, then identity politics is the gasoline that is turning a containable fire into an epic conflagration.”

Prof. Stanovich shows how myside bias is rampant in academia, to the point of undermining the public’s trust in universities making some kinds of research impossible.

Identity politics advocates have succeeded in making certain research conclusions within the university verboten.

They have made it difficult for any university professor (particularly the junior and untenured ones) to publish and publicly promote any conclusions that these advocates dislike. . . .

Besides the usually charged topics of immigration, race, gender et al, academia has also dictated conclusions before the results of any investigation. . . .About issues like:

Whether some cultures promote human flourishing more than others; whether or not men and women have different interests and proclivities; whether or not culture affects poverty rates; whether or not intelligence is partially heritable; whether or not the gender wage gap is largely due to factors other than discrimination; whether or not race-based admissions policies have some unintended consequences; whether or not traditional masculinity is useful to society; and whether or not crime rates vary between the races.

If the professor is correct, we do not reach our conclusions by reason or by assembling evidence.

However, he does say there is a sense in which myside bias has a rational basis, in that building on what we already know allows us to go forward, rather than going back all the time and starting from scratch.

Stanovich’s research is to be published in a forthcoming book titled, The Bias That Divides Us.