This week’s podcast covers the subject of bias.
I wanted to start out the main “meat” of these lessons with this subject since, unless you are able to recognize and address bias, it becomes much more difficult to learn and apply any of the other critical thinking skills we’ll be talking about between now and Election Day.
As this week’s podcast describes, bias is not something we should either deny or be embarrassed by since it is part of the human condition. We are all subject to certain types of cognitive biases, thanks to the way our brains are wired. In fact, if you look at the list linked below you’ll discover that there are over 100 cognitive biases that can impact our ability to perceive, analyze and judge correctly.
But the prevalence of bias does not mean we should surrender to it, especially when making important decisions (such as how to interpret information relating to the upcoming US election). For even if you find yourself inclined to favor one candidate over another, too much hardened bias could cause you to damage the very candidate and causes you believe in.
References made during this podcast include:
Daniel Kahnaman’s Thinking Fast and Slow (Review)
Kevin deLaplante’s Critical Thinker Academy
Educational material associated with this week’s podcast include:
Critical Voter - Bias - Lesson Plan
Excellent material tonight. I just read a book called The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer that also discusses some of the issues involved with how our brains are wired up to make cognitive mistakes. The evolutionary hypothesis (found in Mercier and Sperber’s recent paper) is catnip. Although this podcast was produced before Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, my mind immediately leapt to this when you discussed the anchoring bias. I heard one commentator on MSNBC today say that the Obama camp felt that they could sink Romney over the next 10 days; that this was the window they had to define Ryan as a radical, after which it would be game over. Can’t wait for the next installment.
I like Shermer’s book a lot too.
I noticed a connection this week between the discussion of ethos and the material last time on confirmation bias. It seems strange that with ethos the persuasive power of the technique depends to a good degree on how we are already inclined to think. Of course, this may be true also of pathos (and to a lesser extent, I suppose, even with certain types of logos). Yet it was in the discussion of ethos that it became clear that we either were or weren’t willing to believe the speaker based on our prior inclinations, biases, or beliefs. Isn’t this a type of cognitive bias? Maybe even confirmation bias? Food for thought. Great material again this week!
I really enjoyed this episode Jon!