Confirmation bias is defined as the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing or ideological beliefs. In practice, confirmation bias is turning to the same television news stations, reading the same newspapers or searching the internet for information that supports personal beliefs.
Confirmation bias on most any issue is easy to recognize simply by asking someone to make an adversarial or contradictory argument to their bias belief. In other words, can a person make any line of reasoning for the points of view of the opposition or the other side - if not confirmation bias is obvious and it has noticeably taken hold.
Confirmation bias can also occur because of information inundation. This is a strongly held belief by many factions. Whatever their belief, cause or intent, they say it often; they say it’s true, and they say it loud. Inundation or a barrage of one-sided information can also occur because of majority media slant or whichever individual or group says it.
Accessing Google or Chrome, the world’s most used browser at 64% of Internet users, I searched the term Climate Change. I relinquished scrolling after 15 full pages. I still had not come upon in the search that was opposed to a favorable theory or hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Some years ago, I performed this same exercise and finally found a divergent site on Google’s 10th page.
Some might say this is proof of climate change reality, but I contend it is merely proof of Google’s known biases and their ability to configure, establish and set predisposed algorithms so users arrive at desired material.
Quite often when searching for the biographies of those in opposition of anthropogenic climate change including physicists, scientists, climatologists or geologists, Google’s algorithm will rank a DeSmog Blog biography very high or at the top. The DeSmog Blog writes negative commentary on all opposition or refuting climate change personnel.
Education also plays a significant role in confirmation bias. In a recent high school survey, conducted by the Washington Post, there were 87 Democrat teachers for every 13 Republican teachers. The latter only had more teachers in the math and science departments. In an upper academia poll of tenured college professors, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 10 to 1 – in another survey Democrats tallied a total of 87% of all professorships.
Climate change is more of a political issue than one of physics. Biased lectures from the majority of academicians will certainly lead to a political slant among the young. Youthful protests in favor of both climate change and progressive ideals are definitely evidence of our educator split in political ideology. Some actually think actor Leonardo DiCaprio is an expert climatologist.
Comic Jay Leno during his time as host of the Tonight Show quipped, “According to a new UN report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted, which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." Eco-politicians, green bureaucrats and well-funded scientist espouse that the world is set for demise under climate change, yet people want to pessimistically agree. Why is that?
There are two perspectives at play here. The first is a position of apathy. To fully understand climate change takes research, study and time, thus, the elimination of confirmation bias. The second is the need to ‘fit in’ or assimilate with the majority of friends, colleagues and acquaintances. It is the compromise position, but unfortunately for the apathetic, the wrong one.