The most important conversation I’ve had since coming to college happened my sophomore year in my friend Kim’s cluttered dorm room. We were drinking tea: me out of a mug shaped like Kanye West’s head, her out of a toilet mug. Somehow Reaganomics — the Reagan administration’s policy of government deregulation coupled with cuts to taxes and spending — came up in conversation, and we began discussing how effective they were. Eventually, we came to an impasse where neither of us knew enough about the subject to really continue the discussion. Thus, we did what any intrepid college student would have done: We took out our iPhones and began trying to discover the effects of Reaganomics.
Like any good liberal, Kim Googled “negative effects of supply-side economics” and I, like any good contrarian, searched for the “positive effects supply-side economics.” We threw statistics about economic growth and happiness indexes back and forth until we realized this wasn’t a fruitful conversation. Neither of us were proficient in economics so we couldn’t parse the raw data ourselves, and instead we tried to simply find arguments that supported our views. Instead of trying to have an open conversation, both of us were more interested in proving that we were right.
Obviously people are going to disagree with ideas that run counter to their opinions. What made this conversation so enlightening was the realization that we self-censored information with which we didn’t agree. This intentional selection of information limits our ability to discover the truth about how the world works.
Researchers refer to this purposeful selection of information as a type of cognitive bias. Cognitive biases can manifest themselves in other insidious ways. Consider global warming. Many environmentalists assume that if more people understood the science behind climate change, more people would believe it’s happening. Fundamentally, this makes sense. If you explain to someone how the Earth cannot be flat, they will (hopefully) stop believing it’s flat. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. A recent study by Dan M. Kahan at Yale University shows that conservatives who have a greater understanding of science are less likely to believe in global warming than conservatives who are less fluent in science. The more information a person has, the more someone can twist that information to confirm their preexisting beliefs. This gets back to the heart of the Reaganomics discussion. If a deeply liberal person had a wealth of knowledge about supply-side economics, they would be much more likely to reject its utility. Similarly, if an arch-conservative had the same amount of information, they might overstate the power of supply-side economics and staunchly support its implementation, regardless of the economic context.
This bias is exacerbated when we surround ourselves with like-minded people. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is one of the most contentious on Earth. It therefore shouldn’t be a surprise that when one researcher graphed how Palestinians and Israelis used social media, there was almost no interaction between the two groups. This increases polarization between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups makes it more difficult to reach consensus. Thus, intergroup interaction happens less frequently and doesn’t affect change as much. When I see a discussion between the prominent conservative thinker Dinesh D’Souza and the anti-war activist Bill Ayers billed as a “showdown” or see people tweeting they are part of team Ayers, I worry that a similar phenomenon has happened at the University. This is one of the few formal discussions between liberal and conservative thinkers. We aren’t interested in learning about differences between these two ideologues. Instead, we want our opinions to be vindicated.
Maybe some of my peers aren’t worried about this. Many students at the University might say that they are open to discourse. But when the time comes for open debate, we twist our facts to prove our point rather than risk changing our views. I’m very liberal, but I don’t reject all conservative beliefs a priori. Since coming to college, I’ve come to understand the merit of some strains of conservative thought. That’s a key part of going to college: engaging with the other. If we continue down this path, these engagements will be less valuable and less frequent. That isn’t the sort of university I envision when I think of “the leaders and the best.”
There are a couple of ways to tackle this issue. The first: actively engage people who disagree with you. Don’t try to win an argument, try to understand the beliefs which underpin other people’s worldview. Secondly, research has shown that being aware that you hold these biases can limit their power. The University should incorporate lessons about cognitive biases into English 124/125 courses, helping students evaluate arguments only on their merit. There’s a lot of work to be done to disrupt our biases but it’s rewarding; by removing our biases, we can create a more intellectually nurturing environment at the University and become more thoughtful, holistic thinkers.
Roland Davidson can be reached at mhenryda@umich.edu.