Words at Last

It has been far too long, dearest Bloggerites. Life is life. What can I say. Also, work is work. I was recently given the opportunity to join the awesome team over at Fannit.com, working in the fickle SEO industry. Due to the importance of original material, I've been writing nearly two thousand words of technical content every Monday and Thursday. Oddly enough, there’s something invigorating about starin’ down a blank Word document with complete knowledge that it needs to be filled within 40 minutes. Such a process stands in stark contrast to whatever methods I've used in the past. (Read: “I’ll write when I feel inspired”) 

However, my writing time at home has plummeted. Studying and teaching piano truly does require attention, but it can be discouraging to remember projects like The Lonely Old Man and realize they haven’t been touched in weeks. As a result, I've set aside this afternoon so that some random thoughts and constructive thinking might be written down. Well...it might end up being blatant opinions spewed onto Google Drive, but the end product might be semi-intelligible. In any case, I write this self-inflicted essay with a hope that more will follow....preferably fiction.  

Cognitive bias. According to the Almighty Wiki, it is “A pattern of deviation in judgment. Whereby, inferences of other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.” Referring to a collection of distorted tendencies, a cognitive bias is a deviance spawned from any irrationality, resulting in the ignoring of informational accuracy. Multiple biases continue to permeate ideal judgment which we, as flawed humanity, cannot posses this side of Heaven. The list includes obvious flaws such as exaggerated expectation and self-serving bias, along with more recent studies like the fundamental attribution error, also known as the correspondence bias. 

I believe some biases are innate. After all, there are certain tendencies that come with our sinful nature as some sort of sick bonus. The complete and utter depravity of mankind lends characteristics that, apart from the saving knowledge of Christ, are impossible to overcome. My personal worldview rejects the physiological theory that biases are flawed qualities to what could be a perfect mind. The only time a flawless mind was experienced was before The Fall. 

That being said, select cognitive biases refer to human processing inhibitions. Known as bounded rationality, it’s the inability humans have to arrive at ideal rationality, all due to that darn lack of information and time. This aspect, though perhaps increased by Adam’s sin, does not refer to moral fault, but rather to generic human limitations. We are confined creatures indeed. Therefore, not every facet of “irrationality” refers to an acquired outlook, and certainly not all attain to the status of a logical fallacy (an error of reasoning).

Still with me? I promise, there’s a reason why I wrote all of the above. That reason is what’s referred to as confirmation bias. Put frankly, it’s the tendency people have to Google arguments that agree with their own. Just kidding (kind of). It happens when a person remembers or accepts information in a selective manner, usually in order to support whatever hypothesis or belief they previously held. It is common for opposing opinions to be seriously undervalued or ignored entirely. The result of a confirmation bias might be two contradicting parties who, when presented with the same piece of evidence, separate to their own realm even more vehemently than before. In short, they take what they wanted to hear and turn a deaf ear to whatever else the evidence had to offer. 

I find this fascinating. Specifically, I find this fascinating on an amoral level. That is, when something does not directly apply spiritually. When something doesn't violate scripture or a believer’s conscience. I say this because non-believing skeptics will undoubtedly use the confirmation bias as ground to state theists’ stubborn, ignorant ways. The only problem is, my belief is completely founded in God’s word. Therefore, any “evidence” given that contradicts the Bible will be utterly refused. Yes, atheists would call that ignorant. But the foundation of my soul will not easily be destroyed by man’s contraptions and theorized science. 

So yeah. While amoral may not be the best word choice, my contextual definition still stands.  Certain political issues jump to mind. Again – not those of moral nature. I’m talking topics that aren’t decisions between blatant sin and pleasing SoCal. In such cases, both the Left and Right tend to support whichever evidence confirms their own opinion, somehow fitting the definition of arrogant, mindless, pretentious, fearful, and foolish all at once. But I've written enough political rants in the past, so I’ll move right along.     

The avoidance of confirmation bias requires knowledge. In the end, I suppose that’s what I’m trying to choke out. As Alexander Nehamas said, “Climates of opinion can change: they can be improved or discarded. In either case, they must first be understood.” For someone to overcome a flaw of reasoning, they must seek after knowledge pertaining to the subject or decision at hand. This may include the consideration of opposing opinions and actual contemplation on their legitimacy. Adoption of any opinion is obviously not required; what might be ideal for one, isn't necessarily ideal for another. (Shameless self-reference) 

The point is, one must reason with both sides of an issue to truly make an informed decision. Not that it’s a simple process, nor one that I fully understand or practice. However, I feel that so many opinionated characters are developed through such inconsistencies as confirmation bias. To reject the conservative norm can be dangerous, especially in the opinion of those who conform most perfectly to it. Then again, I should probably listen to what they have to say...