When someone genuinely believes strongly in something, there is a tendency for that person to consider that viewpoint as being objective, and will quite honestly believe they are being objective when they are actually being biased.
There are a few concepts relating to this.
Naive realism describes the tendency for people to believe that they see reality objectively, and that those who disagree are uninformed, irrational, or biased. In other words, "I'm just stating the facts as they are," while failing to recognize their own assumptions and biases.
Bias blind spot is the tendency to recognize biases in other people while failing to see them in oneself. A person may sincerely believe they are being objective when they are not.
Motivated reasoning is the process by which people unconsciously interpret evidence in ways that support conclusions they already favor. They often experience this not as "defending a belief" but as "carefully evaluating the evidence."
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, notice, and remember information that supports existing beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.
False consensus effect is the tendency to assume that one's own views are more widely shared and obvious than they actually are.
Theory-ladenness of observation is the idea that what we observe is influenced by our prior theories, beliefs, and expectations. Even observation itself is not wholly neutral.
All of us have held some or all of these biased concepts at some point, or on some issues, and still do.
Many arguments aren't really about facts. They are about people unconsciously switching between different categories of statements without realizing it.
For example:
The distinction between objectivity and bias is similarly tricky because bias is often thought of as a moral failing. However, in psychology, everyone has biases. The objective person is usually not the one who has no biases, but the one who is most aware of them and actively tries to compensate for them.
It might help to ask yourself this question: "What evidence would convince me that I am wrong?" If the honest answer is "nothing," then the position is functioning more like an identity or commitment than a conclusion. That's not necessarily bad, but it differs from an evidence-based belief.
Other useful concepts include:
Ironically, those who are most convinced of their objectivity are often the ones most susceptible to naive realism and the bias blind spot. Someone saying, "I may be wrong, but here's how I currently see it," is often demonstrating more objectivity than someone saying, "These are just the facts."
The problem, particularly in a discussion forum, is that most people hear "you're biased" as "you're dishonest" or as "you're stupid." A more productive framing is that bias is simply a feature of being human.
There are a few concepts relating to this.
Naive realism describes the tendency for people to believe that they see reality objectively, and that those who disagree are uninformed, irrational, or biased. In other words, "I'm just stating the facts as they are," while failing to recognize their own assumptions and biases.
Bias blind spot is the tendency to recognize biases in other people while failing to see them in oneself. A person may sincerely believe they are being objective when they are not.
Motivated reasoning is the process by which people unconsciously interpret evidence in ways that support conclusions they already favor. They often experience this not as "defending a belief" but as "carefully evaluating the evidence."
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, notice, and remember information that supports existing beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.
False consensus effect is the tendency to assume that one's own views are more widely shared and obvious than they actually are.
Theory-ladenness of observation is the idea that what we observe is influenced by our prior theories, beliefs, and expectations. Even observation itself is not wholly neutral.
All of us have held some or all of these biased concepts at some point, or on some issues, and still do.
Many arguments aren't really about facts. They are about people unconsciously switching between different categories of statements without realizing it.
For example:
- Fact: "The unemployment rate is 4.2%."
- Interpretation: "That means the economy is healthy."
- Value judgment: "A healthy economy should be our top priority."
- Policy preference: "Therefore, we should do X."
The distinction between objectivity and bias is similarly tricky because bias is often thought of as a moral failing. However, in psychology, everyone has biases. The objective person is usually not the one who has no biases, but the one who is most aware of them and actively tries to compensate for them.
It might help to ask yourself this question: "What evidence would convince me that I am wrong?" If the honest answer is "nothing," then the position is functioning more like an identity or commitment than a conclusion. That's not necessarily bad, but it differs from an evidence-based belief.
Other useful concepts include:
- Naive realism: "I see reality as it actually is."
- Bias blind spot: "Other people are biased; I am objective."
- Steelmanning: Stating an opposing view in its strongest form before criticizing it.
- Epistemic humility: Recognizing the possibility that your beliefs could be mistaken.
- Motivated reasoning: Unconsciously reasoning toward a preferred conclusion.
- Belief perseverance: Holding onto a belief even after its original support has been weakened.
Ironically, those who are most convinced of their objectivity are often the ones most susceptible to naive realism and the bias blind spot. Someone saying, "I may be wrong, but here's how I currently see it," is often demonstrating more objectivity than someone saying, "These are just the facts."
The problem, particularly in a discussion forum, is that most people hear "you're biased" as "you're dishonest" or as "you're stupid." A more productive framing is that bias is simply a feature of being human.
Last edited:
