What Are Our REAL Biases? 2 Practical Techniques
How to begin disagreeing and correcting misperceptions in a way that doesn't polarize us.
There is a lot going through social media, business, and of course the mainstream media about bias. In particular, there is an obsession on how to detect the tiny biases that you have, and then how to apologize for them, become an ally, and so on and so forth.
The problem is, much of this bias training is just contributing to the polarization we see in our country and our world today. With good reason, too, because this sort of thing tends to reawaken biases, even create biases, where there were none. If everyone is looking for a bias in themselves or in others, they will find that bias. Furthermore, when people call out the bias in others, especially in the terms we see on social media, it just makes the polarization worse. It also decreases empathy, and makes us see many on the other side of the debate as unmitigated monsters.1
So today, I thought I’d go through a few types of exercise to help with that. It’s a set that I use, and it can be used on two different types of bias: Bias vs people, and Bias vs ideas. On each topic I will start with the general idea and process, give an example, and then give an exercise or two.
Incidentally, this is an exercise for YOU. Get into the habit of doing it, but don’t ever feel the need to share it. NEVER report the results to HR or your colleagues. No matter which side of the political aisle you’re on, it’s trouble you don’t need.
Why are We Biased?
Before we begin, just a note on what bias is, and why we actually need biases.
Bias is a result, at least in part of what Kahneman and Tversky call System 1. 2 We also call this instinct, and it consists of most of our thinking. Why? Because it’s fast, and fast saves energy and lives. Being able to match a pattern of events, such as the smell of smoke, a strange flickering light, and a sudden cough to mean “Danger! Get out NOW!” is one of the things that keeps us alive. Being able to quickly predict whether a person is friendly or not, drunk or sober, or interested in us is not only good for safety, but prevents us from wasting energy on dangerous or useless situations. Best not ask the person who is 3 sheets to the wind for directions, for example, and you had best realize they’re drunk quickly, before they translate your looking at them as being interested in them!
This faculty for pattern-matching is extremely useful, and as a result, much of our day-to-day thinking is spent in System 1. We only use System 2, logic, when we absolutely need to. It’s slow, cumbersome, and energy-intensive.
Many biases are a result of System 1, a pattern that has built up for various reasons that gives us a shortcut to actually thinking about a situation. The problem is that sometimes, for all the best reasons, it leads us astray.
Lately, with all the polarization and violence, we have all ended up strengthening our in group biases, the biases that lead us to associate with others who think the same as us. This keeps us safe in a group. The problem is that to join the group, we have to join the group’s Ideology and Morality, and Morality Binds and Blinds, according to Jonathan Haidt.3 It binds us into groups, and it blinds us to objective reality.
Biases vs People
How do you know you’re biased for or against a person? That’s simple; you love them blindly or you hate them blindly. Loving someone blindly is often part of limerence, the first blush of infatuated love. You usually get over this, one way or another, within about 18 months at most. However, if you feel this way towards someone you are NOT romantically engaged with, or if it goes on much longer than that, this is a concern. This can be a result of psychological manipulation, so be wary.
Nowadays, however, most biased people simply hate someone blindly. From Trump to Fauci to Putin to Klaus Schwab, these are all people who are hated blindly by large segments of the population. The problem with this is that we tend to not really see these people, and it often leads to us reacting to our emotion about them, instead of looking at who they are as people. It can lead us to underestimate our enemies, for example, or lead us to hate people we need to be able to work with.4
So how to correct this? Simple: Find something positive about the person, and make sure it is something that YOU consider a positive. This may sound easy, but for people we hate, it is extremely hard.
Example 1
So, let’s try an example. I’ll pick Hitler, since he is considered one of the gold standards for evil people, particularly in the last century, and for good reason.5
What can I say about Hitler that is good? He’s a monster!
He refused to use poison gas attacks in WWII. Given the horrors of WWI, that’s quite commendable.
He was the primary endorser of the VW Beetle, which he intended to be an affordable car for all Germans. We’d never have had Herbie without him!
He loved animals and nature. So do I.
Hitler banned public smoking. (Which I consider a good, so I’m including it. Sorry smokers, pick another one.)
He started the Autobahn, for all you who love driving with no max speed limit. (I plead the 5th on this one.)
Exercise 1
So, now you try! Pick someone from the following list who you hate, and are sure is terrible and unredeemable! I am picking primarily politicians and prominent political types, since they tend to be the focus of a lot of unreasoning hatred. Write down as many positive things as you can find, and do research if you have to!
Joe Biden or Kamala Harris
Donald Trump
Barack Obama
Anthony Fauci
Merrick Garland
Klaus Schwab
Justin Trudeau
Nigel Farage
Ursula Von Der Leyen
Robert F Kennedy Jr
Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene
Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar
Carl Benjamin
Bill Gates
Now pick someone from the list whom you absolutely LOVE and find as many negative things (things that YOU would consider a negative) as you can. Even the girl you love and adore passes gas now and then, and it’s not always in a cute way.6 Nobody is perfect!
Exercise 2
Now pick someone from your OWN life who you totally hate and see if you can do the exercise on them.7 If there is anyone whom you absolutely adore (and aren't dating) try this on them!
Biases vs Ideas
This one is a lot harder, as the attractiveness of many ideas come from the fact that they fit our own moral frameworks. (For an idea of what those are, read The Righteous Mind, linked down below) Thus, some ideas are simply disgusting to us, literally causing us to gag or wrinkle our noses as if we smelled something horrible. Some ideas cause us to fly into a blind rage. Furthermore, some ideas are just BAD IDEAS, and should never be tried!8
However, there ARE ideas where there are fierce debates in public life, with large numbers of people for and against. Sometimes these debates are completely unrelenting, with people on one side unable to even understand or listen to the views of the other side. These are the ideas we want to target.
Now, this exercise is not meant to get you to agree with the other side! It’s meant to do 2 things:
To make sure that you at least understand what the other side is arguing. Most often your own ideological side will distort the arguments from the other side to be able to defeat them. You want to understand the undistorted argument.
To make sure that the other side knows you are really listening. This often reduces the temperature of the argument, because now both sides understand that the other is not coming in with dishonest intent.9
I have derived this technique from How to Have Impossible Conversations, by Peter Boghossian10 and James Lindsay. For more on the limitations and fine points, go read their excellent book.
Step 1: Get the other side to tell you what they think, and LISTEN!11 If you can, take notes. If you are coming up on a discussion about this, find someone who is credible on the other side and do this as an exercise before you talk to the person you have to discuss this with.
Step 2: Before you state any arguments, you need to do the following in order.
Say something like: Just to make sure I understand you correctly, or I understand you to mean…
Look at your notes or, from memory, read back their argument. Do not change it. If you can, steelman it or reinforce it with information that bolsters it.12 If possible, try to use words involving a similar sensory modality to what they have used. So if they ask "Do you see what I mean" use visual language back. "Do you hear me" you use auditory language, like "I heard you say this."
If they agree with your restatement, well and good, otherwise ask clarifying questions to get as much as possible out of them. Try to politely keep them to the point and not let the questions get too broad.
You may notice that some of your terms don’t mean the same thing. Ask them what they mean by specific terms, and try to be consistent with defining your terms.13
Step 3: Now you get to state your counterargument.
Example 2
It’s hard to do an example of this without going on forever, but I will try a summary on a topic. Suppose I were to talk to someone who was demanding that covid-19 vaccine passports be allowed to attend all social events in perpetuity? (This is a conversation I’ve had, which is why I include it.)
My notes on her position might include:
It keeps people safe
We need to prevent the spread of covid-19
Vaccination makes people safe
It’s a small sacrifice for so much safety
We’re all protecting the elderly and children by doing so
People who don’t vaccinate are risking the safety of everyone else.
Auditory language style
I would then say “Just to make sure I understand you, I heard you say that we need to ensure that people are vaccinated, because it makes people safe and prevents the spread of covid-19. People who don’t vaccinate are risking the safety of children and the elderly, among others, and we all need to make these small sacrifices to ensure the safety of everyone else.”
I would then listen again to make sure they agreed, then ask any follow-up questions I needed to to probe into their ideas. For example, I might ask “What do you think we are sacrificing by requiring vaccine passports? Why would you say that children and the elderly are at the most risk? When do you feel the most at risk from covid-19?”
I then proceed to take apart her argument as politely and gently as possible. In this case, since she is using safety language, I might want to empathize about her desire for safety and her fears, while demonstrating why I think vaccine passports do far more harm than good, especially to our rights and freedoms as citizens, and especially for the mental health of our children.
Exercise 3
Now, take a look at a series of ideas and debates in public life. You are bound to have SOME position, often strongly held, on one of these topics:
Abortion - Why not lead with the big one!
Gun rights and the 2nd amendment
Freedom of Speech and personal pronouns
Should children be allowed to transition under the age of 18? What protections should be afforded to children, and what prerequisites and safeguards should be in place?
Trump 2024? (Might want some plastic shields to protect against spittle on this one, which ever side of this one you’re on!)
The War in Ukraine!
War with China? Yes or no?
Global Climate Change
To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate? (For an easier starter topic, try to vaccinate vs Covid-19 or not. All vaccines is a big and very messy topic, with a lot of crazy, and many people who are against the covid-19 vaccines are actually very pro-vaccine in general, which makes research very difficult.)
How big of a threat is Monkeypox?
What is the role of government in our lives?
Is Capitalism bad?
Religion, Bad or Good? (For extra points, WHICH religion is better?)
I am sure you have some opinions on these, and some of them make your blood boil, for one side or the other. Good! Pick one and follow these steps:
Write down the BEST arguments you have heard against your position. Don’t try to debate them with yourself or try to beat them, just find them. Do some internet research if you have to.
Find someone, perhaps on Quora,14 who can check your list and add ones that you may not have found elsewhere.
Then, for arguments on your list, find the ones that you don’t understand. This can mean that you don’t understand why this is an argument at all, or you don’t understand how anyone could make this argument. If you think that only a monster could feel that way, you’re there!
Again on Quora, or elsewhere if you need to, have someone explain these arguments to you. You want to find someone who agrees with the argument you don’t understand so you get the best possible argument for that position. Again, don’t argue with them. Just try, as seriously as you can, to get why they think that way.
If you can, find a friend who also holds similar positions and ask them to explain it to you. Keep the emotional temperature as low as possible during this, you’re not trying to break up a friendship here, just to understand their side! If you can’t do this without destroying a friendship, skip this step or find an acquaintance.
Now, carefully, write out your own arguments and see how they match up to the counterarguments. Again, keep your emotional temperature low.
Once you can manage this, you may be ready to have this conversation with people, but remember, you don’t want to have a fight about it. As long as you and the other person can keep it civil, you can learn something and cultivate real empathy, possibly even strengthen your relationships, because people know they can trust you to have these conversations with, which makes you a very rare person in today’s world.
By the way, pick the people you talk to very carefully. People hold positions for odd reasons, and if they are not capable of being rational, don’t push them.
Healing the Divide
I think the more people who can have these conversations, carefully and with a regard for the other person, the better off we will be. Modern life, especially modern technology, is good at dividing us from our neighbors and community. The more you can live around people who disagree with you, especially on these topics, the healthier you and our communities will be.
Happy conversing!
Hamartic
Some of those DO exist in society, but even most psychopaths, narcissists, and the like aren’t truly inhuman monsters. Even full-blown serial killers have a very few redeeming qualities, which are best appreciated from the OTHER side of the bars. Kindness and understanding are not the same as reckless stupidity. Don’t be a statistic. And if you’re dealing with a narcissist or a psychopath, BE CAREFUL about setting boundaries and keeping yourself safe. Just because they’re not worse than Hitler doesn’t mean they aren’t highly emotionally - and possibly physically - dangerous to you and others, if you’re not careful.
Daniel Kahneman - Thinking Fast and Slow - Fantastic book, highly recommended
Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind - ALSO a fantastic book, and highly recommended
For example, underestimating Putin’s resilience and preparation for our economic attacks was quite a mistake. The German economy is proof of that, as are starving countries across the world. War is strangely democratic, in that the enemy always gets a vote in what happens.
Please note, I’m NEVER going to say that the person’s not a terrible person. I just want to have a clearer and more human view of them. Even the vilest person has a good side, and if we understand that, we are more effective in dealing with them, as enemy or ally.
I suggest that you not do this on someone you love. Love is one of those irrational things that SHOULD be there, and trying to find reasons why you love someone can actually weaken the attraction, as can trying to find bad things about them. Only do this if you think you’re being love-bombed or gaslit. (Your friends tend to be better at figuring out this sort of thing than you are, so if anyone is trying to separate them from you…)
Please note that TELLING a person that you did this exercise about them is a very bad idea. Telling anyone else who might know them is also a very bad idea. Gossip and rumor-mongering at work or in your social circles is terrible form, and might lead to a lot of your colleagues needing to use this exercise about YOU!
For example, if anyone ever tells you any variant of “Hold my beer and watch this” you are probably watching a bad idea being tried. If there are cars, firearms, or explosives involved in addition to alcohol, this is almost certain.
Unlike politicians, and often modern journalists. There are good journalists out there - Glenn Greenwald for example - but many modern journalism schools train activist journalists. Their job is not to present the facts and let you form your own conclusions. Instead, they see their jab as shaping the public narrative by making one side sound more appealing, and distort the words of the other side. Sad and unfortunate but true.
For an excellent example of ANOTHER way to manage this, including angry reaction from college administrators, who apparently did not like such reasoned discourse on campus, watch this. Peter Boghossian - Group Reasoned Discourse
Don’t do what most of us do, which is formulate our counterargument as we listen to their argument.
If you CAN steelman their argument, or expand on it in a way that they agree with, you are a pro. That’s incredibly hard to do, and may require some prep beforehand doing research.
If you see that their terms start to shift during the debate, redefine or remind them of the terms. If they keep shifting their terms, however, this may mean that this technique doesn’t work. This may ALSO mean that they are someone who uses constantly changing ideas, terms, motte and bailey tactics, etc in order to avoid being challenged and try to “win” as opposed to understand. This may mean that they are not a reasonable person and should be avoided.
Quora is very reasoned and calm, which you will need on this exercise.
Good essay. I liked the distinction between bad people and bad ideas. Too many on each side of the polarised landscape now imagine the other side entirely composed of the most extreme caricatures held up as examples, by either side of the Corporate media divide.