By Terry Oxley ——Bio and Archives--May 12, 2023
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Bias is a bit like an autopilot that once programmed guides us along the most agreeable route to our predetermined opinions. It navigates away from the contrary and stops along the way only for those bits of information that confirm our prejudices.
In social science, this tendency is called “confirmation bias.” Awareness of confirmation bias, sometimes called wishful thinking, delivers truckloads of insight about how notoriously flimsy notions persist. It follows then that Individuals/groups lacking objectivity as a core value are absent from any list of the “most trusted” and unsurprisingly a recent Gallop Poll pegs congress members as next to last on the trust scale just above telemarketers.
I hate to disappoint anyone, but wishful thinking is generously distributed without regard to political orientation. President John Kennedy acknowledged this universal frailty when he said we citizens tend to “…enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” Confirmation bias seems firmly anchored within the political class and by extension the political organizations they represent. Thoughtful consideration of competing views that might compel change are resisted at all costs. Winston Churchill’s quip that “those who never change, never change anything” seems hauntingly applicable.
Thankfully, there are historical examples of enlightened leaders and organizations that have successfully employed discomforting thought and objective problem solving. Notable examples include President Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Army.
President Lincoln embraced discomforting thought and opposing viewpoints when staffing his wartime cabinet. He intentionally selected members based on qualifications and diverse opinions irrespective of their politics. His choice of political rivals like William Seward was considered by some as pure folly. Seward, Lincoln’s choice for Secretary of State, was well known for his oft strident disagreements with the newly elected President. There is little wonder then why Lincoln’s cabinet room was often a discomforting place – a forum where battling viewpoints produced an objectivity that helped save the Union. A measure of Lincoln’s leadership was his pursuit of insights derived from dissenting perspectives and an awareness (borne of humility) that he was not always the smartest voice in the room.
The U.S. Army has fielded exercises that demonstrate how competing views and objective analyses benefit results. One classroom exercise features a plane crash scenario requiring survivors to negotiate choices before making a long and hazardous trek overland to safety.
From a myriad of wreckage items each soldier must choose ten items considered most critical for survival. Individual soldiers then defend their choices before the full group and make revisions based on what is learned from others. From the revised individual lists a group consensus process produces a “consensus solution.”
The consensus solution is then compared with a field-tested “school solution.” With great reliability group consensus solutions outperform individual choices. Lesson learned: decision making benefits from differing opinions freely expressed within an objective decision-making environment.
In contrast to these examples, our national leaders seem fully comfortable within their respective echo chambers where conformance is expected, seeking political advantage masquerades as problem solving, and leadership is too often a matter of seniority rather than competence. Over time, those who keep a glimmer of objectivity (thought criminals in Orwellian terms) are systematically excluded leaving only those willing to surrender independent thought. It is no wonder then that when political delusions are defended with demagoguery and name calling (e.g., Nazi, communist, racist, sexist, and conspiracist) the door to constructive civil discourse is not only closed, but also nailed shut.
Meanwhile, we citizens must struggle to find glimmers of reason in this milieu of thoughtlessness. Our best defense, not surprisingly, is objective thinking. We would be well served to take a cue from the scientific method. Like scientists, we must acknowledge that biases influence every stage of inquiry and left unaddressed will corrupt results. And, like scientists, we are individually responsible for thorough consideration of both confirming and contradictory findings – doing less makes us co-conspirators of those who believe that in the quest for political power truth is optional.
Is Kennedy’s admonition about our tendency to avoid discomforting thought to be our epitaph – or, to paraphrase President Lincoln, will the “…better angels of our nature” arrive in time to save us from ourselves once again?
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Terry is a former utility executive, retired military officer and community service volunteer residing in Tumwater, WA. He has served as Board Director for the United Services Organization (USO), Washington Business Week Foundation, Washington Youth Academy and the Bellevue Schools Foundation. Terry has also served as a contributing writer for The Olympian, a newspaper headquartered in Olympia, WA.