More on “the truth in comics”

Monty provides another window today on the phenomenon known as “confirmation bias” in politics. Monty and Moondog both receive the same information and yet draw the opposite conclusions from it.

2 Responses to “More on “the truth in comics””

1. Rob R says:

   November 5, 2008 at 1:01 am

   Given what you described earlier, I don’t think this comic actually gives us an example of confirmation bias. You spoke of conservatives watching fox vs liberals watching msnbc as an instance of confirmation bias as each group may recieve different information that reinforces their beliefs. Here we have two different groups reacting to the same type of information. The information is ambiguous and integrated into different political hopes. This isn’t splitting hairs here. It’s not the quality of information, it’s the quality of interpretation, and in this specific instance, I would argue that the quality of interpretation in the instance above is different, and not better or worse. It’s not necessarily the case that if we all have the same information, we can arrive at the same picture.

   We can’t avoid our lenses through which we look at the world and we are worse off if we pretend they are not there shaping the way we percieve and believe. We are better off epistemically when we identify our lenses and see them not as just a liability but also a necessary help. They can distort the picture, but they also can bring clarity.
2. bodhipaksa says:

   November 5, 2008 at 11:38 am

   Hi Rob,

   I still think this is probably is an example of confirmation bias, which I described as “the tendency for us to seek out or to accept information that reinforces our existing beliefs.” Confirmation bias is the functioning of the “lenses” you talk about.

   As you say, we inevitably filter information, and the confirmation bias is a description of one way we do this — we select from our environment those messages that reinforce our views, we ignore or dismiss those that don’t, and we interpret facts in such a way that they confirm what we already believe.

   So in this case the fact is what the Doc said, and both Moondog and Monty read into his comment what they wanted to hear. At least that’s how I interpret it.

   I have no quibble about the desirability of becoming more aware of the lenses we inevitably have. Where politics gets really messy is where people are completely unaware that they have lenses, and where they confuse their interpretation with what’s actually true. The comments I referenced by Jonah Goldberg and Janet Porter, which portrayed Obama as a racist pro-terrorist who wants to implement a policy of forced abortion, for example, bear no relation to the reality of who Obama is and what his policies are. That’s assuming these people even believe their own views, rather than their views being “convenient lies” intended to scare people into supporting McCain.

   I guess both Moondog and Monty would have been better to pause, to notice their tendency to latch onto one particular interpretation of the Doc’s statements, and to think carefully about what other interpretations were possible. And so should we all.