So a few years ago I read a book that talked about anchoring bias... fascinating book really, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Anchoring bias simply occurs when individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information—the "anchor"—to make subsequent judgments, even if that information is irrelevant or inaccurate.
Think along the lines of someone making a good first impression or a bad first impression. That initial input of "good" or "bad" will skew the way we treat someone afterwards. We don't really like to admit it, but it will effect the way we think about them, talk about them, interact with them and even what we expect from them, for better or for worse. It can even serve to inform how we view other people not even connected to, but who remind us of, that first person.
It's one of the main reasons, I believe, there is such a disparity in how people respond to current events. I'm convinced its why we might see someone who we know to be a kind and decent human being, speaking up in support of indecent things.
It's way more involved than I have the time or energy to get into today, but the reason I was reminded of it was because of a post that was shared by a friend yesterday. It contains what I call "bias bombing" (an old term I just made up).
Sadly, anything can be turned into a weapon... including anchoring bias or any bias for that matter. Ever notice how quickly an article or a news conference happens in regards to something that supports or dismantles one side or the other... and how quickly an article of the exact opposite comes out as well. Whoever gets the news out first, and with the most emotional impact (you know, to really drive the point home and make it stick with you) will not have to work as hard to convince you of how to view or respond to anything else that follows. Your biases will do most of the work for them. Even your "trusted source" knows how to use familiarity bias, halo effect, authority bias, in-group bias, affinity fallacy, appeal to loyalty, appeal to relationship, emotional reasoning, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, argument from character, narrative bias, and social proof to keep you on their side. The most harmful part of it all, is that any data presented afterwards will tend to be interpreted through that first lens only. Eyewitness testimony, video footage, documents, forensic evidence, articles, trials, etc... it wont matter how extensive the evidence is stacked, belief perseverance and cognitive dissonance take over and keep you firmly grounded on one side. This is why jurors can't have heard anything about a defendant before a trial. It will absolutely skew their judgement. This is also why we have a hard time believing somebody we've known for years could have committed an unthinkable crime. This is why we often fight over a single issue and give pardon to other areas that are lacking. And so on.
Does this mean we can't trust anyone or anything anymore? Are we just doomed to our biases like marionette puppets being strung along by media outlets?
No.
I'm convinced we can learn to spot the assumptions we make as well as the ones being made for us. We can learn to ask why we believe what we believe about strangers, about our neighbors, about ourselves, about our world, and we can recalibrate as needed.
As far as the news or friends' posts and comments go, I've learned to spot the words that attempt to anchor interpretation rather than merely describe an event. Honestly, if any more than 10 percent of the first few sentences contains any of these triggering words, I move along. It's that simple. I know now that its sole purpose is to stir up big emotions with big labels in order to pin me against whoever they want me to be against. They are not reporting to help me draw my own conclusions.
Here's a nice little list of words, certainly not extensive, but a good place to start. Once you start seeing them, you'll notice them being used as the bulk of content everywhere.
Radical
Extremist
Far-____
Hardline
Ultra-
Fringe
Anti- _____
Activist
Dangerous
Reckless
Hateful
Violent rhetoric
Incendiary
Toxic
Unhinged
Menacing
Deranged
Fanatical
Domestic terrorist
Insurrectionist
Militant
Armed agitator
Threat to democracy
National security risk
Violently resisted
Escalated the situation
Conspiracy theorist
Baseless claims
Debunked
Denier
Disinformation spreader
Misinformation campaign
Part of a broader pattern
Echoing extremist talking points
Fueled by online radicalization
Emboldened by rhetoric
Inspired by dangerous movements
Shocking
Alarming
Chilling
Explosive
Stunning
Disturbing
Jaw-dropping
Authorities say
Officials confirm
Experts warn
Intelligence sources indicate
According to law enforcement
Defending democracy
On the wrong side of history
Threat to our values
Common-sense reforms
Reasonable people agree
Here's a little pop quiz.... did you happen to automatically add any of these words to the list in your mind... "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative", "progressive" or "traditionalist". Not to bum you out, but it's a sure sign you've been taught to vilify "the other side". You've been taught "Us VS Them". We all have. But it doesn't have to be that way. I will say this, it's more so online than person to person. There's still some hope for real conversations when we meet face to face!
One thing I know for sure, it is NEVER my job to respond to bias bombs with equally charged language. Sometimes I don't respond at all, especially if I know I'm full of emotion and want to word vomit. I've learned (the hard way) it rarely yields good results. I simply use it as a reminder (because I most certainly need the reminder) to always litmus test the language being used, always confirm facts among multiple sources, and to respond with as much love and compassion as possible. No one is my enemy because of something they anchored to in the middle of a storm.
All this to say, I am convinced that the best defense against anyone weaponizing our biases against us, is in knowing exactly what we are anchored to. For me it's Christ. Christ teaches "Us FOR Them". Always. That's what made him such a "radical" teacher. He is my recalibration.
As an exercise in spotting bias, here's the post that was shared yesterday (and yes, of course you can find the exact same type of article for/against "the other side" using the exact same verbiage). How many bias bombs can you spot? Are they presenting evidence and facts that can be confirmed by multiple sources or is everything an appeal to some type of assumption? Does the language create pictures with interpretation words so that you don't actually feel its necessary to go and confirm the details?
[[Shocking new details from Minneapolis: Radical left extremist Alex Pretti, labeled a domestic terrorist, violently resisted arrest, reached for his holster, and fired his gun at federal officers. Armed with a military-style pistol, optics, and up to 51 rounds – no permit or ID in sight – he was clearly ready for a firefight. Video shows him struggling to aim his weapon, forcing officers to defend themselves. Ballistics confirm he fired first, debunking left-wing conspiracy theories that he was unarmed. This self-inflicted tragedy exposes the dangers of anti-police rhetoric and proves why President Trump's strong support for law enforcement is crucial. Back the blue and reject the "defund the police" madness! ]]
If we take out all of the bias bombs and interpretive language, what are we left with and what do we do with it? Alex Pretti, reached for his holster and fired his gun (a pistol) at federal officers. No permit or ID.
Now we can sift through what is presented and verify whether it's accurate or not. If something is incorrect, its simply incorrect information. This incident doesn't have to throw us into a frontline battle of right vs left. Our identity isn't being attacked, we're simply trying to figure out what happened and why it matters. With significantly less emotional gymnastics to overcome, we can ALL ask simple questions that have measurable answers. What were the events that led up to Alex interacting with the officers? Did the officers see that he had a gun holstered? Did the officers ask for ID? Did the officers ask for permit to carry? Did they find it on his person later? How is it determined who fired first? How many times did he fire? How many shells were found from his gun? What was the location of the shells? Is this according to eyewitnesses? How many? Is there body cam footage and transcript of the officers interaction? Is there spectator footage? Has everyone involved been interviewed? Do their statements match or are there varying accounts? Do any statements appear rehearsed? Do ballistics reports determine order of shots fired or do they just match a bullet to a gun? How many rounds did the officers fire? Did they shoot to disarm or to kill? Did the officers use pepper spray and/or tasers as a first line of defense? How did they attempt to disarm him? Did they follow protocol?
I'm no detective, but I know that questions like these are valid and worth asking. They aren't attacks, they aren't rhetoric, they aren't anti-anybody, they aren't madness, they aren't conspiracy theories... they're accountability for everyone. I'm sure there's more that would be asked in an investigation as well. We can't assume these questions have been asked just because an article alludes to an answer. In the end, these kinds of questions and answers are important because they help lead to a consensus on truth and then we get to decide what to do with it.
And this my friends is the most "dangerous" thing of all. Its what threatens the narrative of whoever is clawing for power. My autonomy. My ability to question. My ability to search for answers. My ability to think. My ability to spot my own biases.
This is what Ive learned to do. It's brought me insight and peace along the way. I hope it does the same for you.
** Full disclosure, Chatgpt helped compile the list of words and the title of this post**
No comments:
Post a Comment