In our complex world, we constantly struggle to establish beliefs about various aspects of life. Whether it’s our perception of humanity, economic trends, investments, career choices, or personal philosophies, our minds seek to make sense of the world through assumptions. However, these assumptions often become breeding grounds for the confirmation bias, a cognitive bias that reinforces our beliefs by filtering out contradictory evidence. This article delves into the far-reaching implications of confirmation bias and its impact on our understanding of the world.
The Comfort of Assumptions
Life constantly demands that we form beliefs about our surroundings. Whether it’s the global economy, our place in it, or our relationships with others, assumptions are the foundation of our understanding. These assumptions help us navigate a world that’s too vast, chaotic, and unpredictable to grasp fully. They simplify decision-making, acting as shortcuts that save mental energy and emotional resources. But while assumptions offer comfort, they come with a cost—confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias arises when we gravitate towards evidence that supports our existing beliefs while conveniently disregarding anything that contradicts them. This is particularly evident in the realm of personal assumptions. For instance, when we believe that “people are inherently good,” we see acts of kindness and charity everywhere. We notice the individual helping a neighbor or the stranger who holds the door open. On the other hand, those who believe “people are inherently bad” are quick to notice manipulation, greed, and deceit in others. They focus on the opportunistic behaviors of politicians or the malicious actions of others, ignoring instances where people exhibit altruism. The more abstract the assumption—such as notions about human nature—the more susceptible we are to confirmation bias.
What’s troubling about this process is that these assumptions often remain unchallenged as we surround ourselves with evidence that fits neatly into our worldview. This reinforces the belief that what we think must be true. However, these assumptions rarely stand up to scrutiny. When faced with contradictory evidence, we often dismiss it rather than interrogate our deeply held beliefs. Confirmation bias doesn’t allow us to grow intellectually; instead, it keeps us stuck in a loop, reinforcing outdated and narrow perspectives. This cycle of reinforcement prevents us from considering new ideas and evolving our understanding of the world.
The Vague Prophecies of Astrologers and Economists
Astrologers and economists, despite their vastly different professions, share a common approach when it comes to predictions: they use vague, broad statements that are designed to fit almost any outcome. This allows them to continue perpetuating their ideas without ever being proven wrong. It’s a strategy that exploits confirmation bias, ensuring that their statements can always be “confirmed” by future events, no matter how specific or unrelated those events might be.
Astrologers, for instance, will often make sweeping generalizations like “In the coming weeks, you will experience a moment of sadness.” This could apply to anyone—at any time. Humans experience sadness regularly, and because astrology is inherently vague, the prediction becomes nearly impossible to disprove. The astrologer’s statement is confirmed if someone feels a pang of sadness. If the person does not feel sadness, the astrologer can simply move on to the next vague prediction, leaving the earlier one behind as a mere coincidence.
Economists, on the other hand, craft statements like “In the medium term, the pressure on the dollar will increase.” The term “medium term” is intentionally vague, allowing it to span an indeterminate period of time. Six months? A year? More? By leaving the timeframe unclear, they ensure their prediction can still be deemed accurate regardless of what happens to the dollar in the short run. Any fluctuation in the dollar’s value, no matter how minor, can be linked to their predictions. This enables them to avoid accountability since the statement was never specific enough to be falsified.
This vague style of forecasting doesn’t just benefit astrologers and economists; it also feeds into confirmation bias. Once a prediction is made, people look for evidence that supports it, even if such evidence is minimal or inconsequential. The original, ambiguous statement gets reaffirmed because people are eager to validate their beliefs. They are no longer engaging with objective data—they are simply looking for anything that fits their view of the world, strengthening their preconceptions.
Religious and Philosophical Beliefs: Hotbeds for Confirmation Bias
Religious and philosophical belief systems provide fertile ground for confirmation bias to flourish precisely because they often rely on faith rather than evidence. Unlike scientific principles or factual reasoning, religious beliefs are inherently based on conviction and trust in something beyond tangible proof. This creates a situation where believers are more inclined to interpret the world in ways that affirm their faith while rejecting evidence that contradicts it.
Take, for example, the belief in the existence of God. For many religious adherents, any positive or seemingly miraculous event—a surprising turn of fortune, a moment of serendipity, or an answered prayer—becomes perceived as a sign of divine intervention. This experience often aligns with their deep belief in God’s existence and power. However, when similar events happen to non-believers or those who do not subscribe to religious faith, these occurrences are seen as mere coincidences. The event doesn’t change; the interpretation shifts based on the viewer’s prior belief system.
This selective interpretation demonstrates the power of confirmation bias. Believers tend to filter out or downplay anything that might suggest their faith is misplaced while actively seeking and magnifying evidence that supports their worldview. The difficulty in refuting faith-based beliefs lies in their very nature: faith is not grounded in empirical evidence, making it nearly impossible to present a counter-argument that would compel believers to rethink their stance. In the face of contradictory evidence, the believer will often dismiss it or reinterpret it in a way that preserves their faith.
Moreover, philosophical systems that rely on broad principles about life, morality, or human nature are similarly prone to confirmation bias. When we adopt a particular worldview, we begin to see the world through the lens of that philosophy, subconsciously interpreting everything around us as evidence in support of our chosen ideology. This makes it difficult to question or challenge that worldview, as the very process of interpretation reinforces our existing beliefs, leaving little room for opposing viewpoints.
The Business Journalist’s Trap
Business journalists often fall victim to confirmation bias when crafting their narratives about corporate success. In their attempt to explain why specific companies thrive, they focus on oversimplified stories that fit neatly into a popular narrative. A typical business story might look at Google and claim its success is due to its emphasis on fostering a creative corporate culture. This makes for an appealing, digestible explanation that fits the popular narrative about the importance of creativity in business.
However, journalists rarely challenge this theory. They rarely consider the companies that thrive without such a culture. What about the companies that succeed by focusing on operational efficiency, market domination, or even sheer financial muscle without emphasizing creativity? These examples exist in abundance but are typically left out of the narrative because they do not fit the preconceived idea that creativity is the ultimate key to business success.
This selective omission is an example of confirmation bias at work. By ignoring contradictory evidence—companies that have flourished without a creative environment or failed despite creative efforts—journalists reinforce the belief that creativity is the key to success. This doesn’t mean creativity isn’t valuable, but it shows how easily our perceptions can be skewed when we fail to consider all the evidence. In this case, the journalist is not simply presenting facts; they are shaping a story that reinforces a particular view of the business world, even if that view is incomplete or overly simplistic.
Moreover, the confirmation bias in business journalism affects readers as well. As they consume these stories, they begin to internalize the belief that creativity is the most important factor for success. As a result, they may disregard other key elements that might lead to business prosperity, such as strategic vision, leadership, or even financial discipline. This tunnel vision limits innovation and progress, as business leaders focus exclusively on creativity, neglecting the multifaceted nature of success in the corporate world.
The Blinkered Nature of Self-Help
The self-help industry is where confirmation bias runs rampant, often to the detriment of its audience. Many self-help books and motivational speakers promote overly simplistic solutions to complex life problems, such as the idea that “meditation is the key to happiness.” While meditation may benefit some people, it’s not a universal solution to personal fulfillment. The problem arises when self-help authors build careers on a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to happiness.
This is especially problematic because these books selectively present examples of individuals whose lives were improved by following the prescribed method. These books rarely—if ever—acknowledge the existence of people who lead fulfilling lives without engaging in meditation or those who practice meditation but still struggle with mental health issues or life satisfaction. The message is clear: meditation is the answer, and if you’re not happy, it’s because you’re not meditating enough. This fails to account for the complexity of human happiness, which is influenced by countless factors beyond just one practice.
In this way, self-help books exploit confirmation bias by presenting only the stories that validate their thesis. The reader, in turn, starts to believe that the advice offered is universally applicable, disregarding any evidence to the contrary. By selectively presenting examples reinforcing the main message, self-help books create an echo chamber where alternative approaches to happiness and fulfillment are either ignored or dismissed. This lack of balance prevents readers from considering the broader context of their lives and the many factors contributing to well-being.
Moreover, this narrow focus perpetuates a dangerous myth: that there is a single, correct path to success or happiness. The danger here is that readers internalize this false belief, applying the same rigid thinking to other aspects of their lives. Whether it’s relationships, careers, or personal development, they believe there is a “right” way to do things, and anything outside of that approach is flawed or inadequate.
The Internet: A Petri Dish for Confirmation Bias
The rise of the internet has only intensified the confirmation bias that permeates our daily lives. With the explosion of online content, social media platforms, and personalized search algorithms, we are increasingly exposed to information reflecting our views and opinions. Whether browsing news websites, following blogs, or scrolling through social media, we naturally seek content that aligns with our beliefs.
This process is exacerbated by the algorithms governing many websites and platforms we use. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, for example, prioritize content that is likely to engage us, often based on our previous interactions and preferences. This means that the more we like or share content that reflects our existing views, the more we are exposed to similar content, reinforcing our beliefs. As a result, we are increasingly surrounded by like-minded individuals who share our views, further solidifying our beliefs and creating a feedback loop that isolates us from dissenting opinions.
This phenomenon creates “echo chambers,” where our ideas are constantly affirmed by the information we consume. It becomes increasingly difficult to encounter alternative viewpoints or engage with ideas that challenge our existing beliefs. As we spend more time in these digital spaces, we become more entrenched in our ideologies, and our willingness to consider other perspectives diminishes. The internet, instead of being a tool for broadening our understanding, ends up narrowing it.
The consequences of this digital confirmation bias are far-reaching. In politics, individuals become increasingly polarized, as they are only exposed to news and opinions that reinforce their political affiliations. This undermines the possibility of productive dialogue and understanding between opposing sides, leading to more significant division and mistrust. Similarly, in other areas of life—such as social issues, health, and even entertainment—confirmation bias online fosters tribalism, where individuals refuse to entertain opposing views and instead surround themselves with content that validates their preexisting beliefs. In many ways, the internet has become a self-reinforcing echo chamber for our biases rather than a space for genuine learning and growth.
Murder Your Darlings: A Lesson from Literature
The famous advice from writer Arthur Quiller-Couch to “murder your darlings” applies to writers and anyone who struggles with letting go of deeply held beliefs. In literature, this advice refers to cutting out sentences, phrases, or sections that, although cherished by the writer, do not serve the overall narrative. The idea is that writers often become attached to certain words or ideas, even when they are no longer helpful in advancing the plot or message.
In the context of overcoming confirmation bias, “murdering your darlings” means being willing to challenge and let go of beliefs or assumptions that have become ingrained over time. These beliefs may feel comforting, even though they limit our ability to see the world in a broader, more nuanced way. Just as a writer must cut unnecessary or redundant material, we, too, must be willing to discard beliefs that no longer serve us, or that reinforce a narrow, biased perspective.
This process is not easy. Beliefs often become deeply embedded in our identities, making it difficult to question or let them go. It feels like we’re losing a part of ourselves, much like a writer feels when they must cut out a beloved scene or character. However, the only way to break free from confirmation bias is to actively seek out disconfirming evidence and confront the beliefs that hold us back. It requires humility and the recognition that our worldview may not be as infallible as we once thought.
By challenging our assumptions and seeking alternative perspectives, we open ourselves up to growth. We become more adaptable, able to reevaluate our beliefs based on new information, and less likely to fall into the trap of self-reinforcing biases. This process of intellectual humility is difficult, but it is essential to see the world more clearly and make more informed decisions. Murdering our darlings, in this sense, becomes an act of liberation, allowing us to break free from the shackles of confirmation bias and embrace a broader, more nuanced understanding of the world.
Conclusion
Confirmation bias is a pervasive cognitive bias that influences our understanding of the world and reinforces our existing beliefs. From personal convictions to business journalism, self-help literature, and the internet, it finds footholds in various spheres of life. Overcoming the confirmation bias necessitates active engagement with disconfirming evidence, seeking out alternative viewpoints, and being willing to challenge deeply ingrained beliefs. By embracing a mindset of intellectual curiosity and skepticism, we can break free from the grip of confirmation bias and cultivate a more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted world in which we live.
The article is part of The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.