When Intelligent People Disagree
We consider ourselves evolved, liberated, experienced, and civilized, but we have fundamental flaws that are fun to watch from the sidelines. One of my favorite activities is to watch two intelligent people empathetically disagreeing.
This is different from logically disagreeing, and here is an example of a logical one. Tom remembers that Alan Alda did not star in the first season of the television show MASH. Sally disagreed and used the IMBD website to prove that Alan was on the show. Tom (while disappointed) concluded that he made an error. Such logical disagreements occur all the time.
Alternatively, Tom could have argued that the IMDB site did not have the correct information. So, Sally uses her computer to locate another source. Tom still refuses to acknowledge his error and calls his friends until one incorrectly agrees. Tom then wildly searches the internet to find a site with an error that “proves” his point.
Does it end there? No, Tom will make up facts to fit his unstable argument and even pull others into the mess. “I got a… letter from Alan Alda saying he was not in the first season.” “Really? Let’s see it.” “Oh, I lost it.”
From the sidelines, I find the silliness fun to watch, the endless absurd arguments, lies, and desperation. What is going on?
Tom is an intelligent person, and so is Sally. It was as if a bad person took over Tom, and he descended into anarchy. Tom’s intelligent arguments diminish as the debate rages, and he resorts to underhanded tactics. This will include lying, cheating, and tossing his morals aside. After the argument, Tom will not apologize for the wrath of destruction he created.
Tom has blundered into one of my favorite topics. Confirmation bias is the part of our mind that refuses to accept an obvious fact. An honest, intelligent, and logical person will lie, destroy evidence, become hostile, make unsubstantiated arguments, and refuse to acknowledge what is in front of them. Confirmation bias overrides our morals, logic, common sense, judgement, and manners for specific topics. My wife calls confirmation bias “the science of being stubborn.”
We can see clear cases of confirmation bias in controversial topics like religion, climate change, politics, and alternative medicine. Here is one personal example that I am willing to admit. I like the music of the band Rush. Yes, their lyrics are preachy, and the lead singer has a squeaky voice. This means their music is not for everybody. But, no. They are the best band ever, and I get upset when people disagree. Would I lie, cheat, and sabotage other bands? Umm, no comment.
What is the difference between confirmation bias and passion towards a topic? If people genuinely believe in their cause, they understand that underhanded tactics will not help.
For example, scientists proved that the earth is round. At the time, these scientists were ridiculed, but they passionately believed in their cause, and eventually, their beliefs were accepted as fact. We would still worry about boats going off the ocean’s edges if they faked their data.
Another fascinating aspect of confirmation bias is it is difficult to write about. Readers need clear motivations behind character actions. “Tom refused to believe that Alan Alda joined MASH in the first season.” Why is he making that silly argument? Therefore, the author must provide a well-explained reason and a detailed backstory to back up the reason. Of course, we do not provide a backstory during our confirmation bias events in real life.
As for me, I will continue to listen to Rush and write about characters with well-defined motives. Or do I have a confirmation bias against mysterious characters? I’ll never know.
You’re the best -Bill
May 08, 2019 Updated March 31, 2024
This is different from logically disagreeing, and here is an example of a logical one. Tom remembers that Alan Alda did not star in the first season of the television show MASH. Sally disagreed and used the IMBD website to prove that Alan was on the show. Tom (while disappointed) concluded that he made an error. Such logical disagreements occur all the time.
Alternatively, Tom could have argued that the IMDB site did not have the correct information. So, Sally uses her computer to locate another source. Tom still refuses to acknowledge his error and calls his friends until one incorrectly agrees. Tom then wildly searches the internet to find a site with an error that “proves” his point.
Does it end there? No, Tom will make up facts to fit his unstable argument and even pull others into the mess. “I got a… letter from Alan Alda saying he was not in the first season.” “Really? Let’s see it.” “Oh, I lost it.”
From the sidelines, I find the silliness fun to watch, the endless absurd arguments, lies, and desperation. What is going on?
Tom is an intelligent person, and so is Sally. It was as if a bad person took over Tom, and he descended into anarchy. Tom’s intelligent arguments diminish as the debate rages, and he resorts to underhanded tactics. This will include lying, cheating, and tossing his morals aside. After the argument, Tom will not apologize for the wrath of destruction he created.
Tom has blundered into one of my favorite topics. Confirmation bias is the part of our mind that refuses to accept an obvious fact. An honest, intelligent, and logical person will lie, destroy evidence, become hostile, make unsubstantiated arguments, and refuse to acknowledge what is in front of them. Confirmation bias overrides our morals, logic, common sense, judgement, and manners for specific topics. My wife calls confirmation bias “the science of being stubborn.”
We can see clear cases of confirmation bias in controversial topics like religion, climate change, politics, and alternative medicine. Here is one personal example that I am willing to admit. I like the music of the band Rush. Yes, their lyrics are preachy, and the lead singer has a squeaky voice. This means their music is not for everybody. But, no. They are the best band ever, and I get upset when people disagree. Would I lie, cheat, and sabotage other bands? Umm, no comment.
What is the difference between confirmation bias and passion towards a topic? If people genuinely believe in their cause, they understand that underhanded tactics will not help.
For example, scientists proved that the earth is round. At the time, these scientists were ridiculed, but they passionately believed in their cause, and eventually, their beliefs were accepted as fact. We would still worry about boats going off the ocean’s edges if they faked their data.
Another fascinating aspect of confirmation bias is it is difficult to write about. Readers need clear motivations behind character actions. “Tom refused to believe that Alan Alda joined MASH in the first season.” Why is he making that silly argument? Therefore, the author must provide a well-explained reason and a detailed backstory to back up the reason. Of course, we do not provide a backstory during our confirmation bias events in real life.
As for me, I will continue to listen to Rush and write about characters with well-defined motives. Or do I have a confirmation bias against mysterious characters? I’ll never know.
You’re the best -Bill
May 08, 2019 Updated March 31, 2024
Follow me
