The Art of Confirmational Bias
Exactly what is confirmational bias? Would you recognize it if you encountered it? Are you guilty of confirmational bias?
Let's look at a recent Change.org petition started by Erin Smith demanding ABC TV to fire Jesse Williams for his recent BET speech. Mr. Williams speech passionately, verbally choreographed what many black people experience and live daily, and sadly, have historically lived in these United States of America. This petition, started by a miffed white woman steeped in confirmational bias and ignorance was signed by at least twenty thousand, and counting, after inspiring other confirmationally biased individuals, who are hopefully, at the very ;east, unclear of the mechanics of and the exhibition of racism.
You have to ask yourself, how does a woman, albeit an obvious entitled white woman, confuse the shooting death, nee murder, of a twelve year old black male child, as a call to kill all police officers? But there it is, in clearly expressed confrmational bias by an entitled white woman that feels that she and other whites are the objects of active racism, evidenced by the speech of a young, bi-racial (read black man) voicing the very real trespass that happens to black men, women and children every day. Her profound ignorance cannot grasp that pain that blacks struggle with that spans generations. And yet, inconceivably, Erin Smith judges any whisper of demonstrated racism against blacks as a racist indictment against whites!
Another, not so clear example of confirmational bias can be found in a book, "Blink" written by Malcom Gladwell. His book clearly defines his obvious acceptance and understanding about how five undercover, white policemen came to the exact same conclusion about the future intentions of a lone black man that resulted in all five policemen shooting and ultimately killing an innocent, unarmed black man, Amadou Diallo, standing on his balcony enjoying the night air. Gladwell is comfortable with trained police officers responding in concert to a perceived threat that results in an innocent man being killed. This type of "magical thinking", bolstered by confirmational bias has led to the exponential increase of police shootings.
Mr. Gladwell's second act of confirmational bias took place recently on "The Nightly Show". Mr. Gladwell, almost giddy, shared how he formed an opinion about OJ Simpson's guilt in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Conspiratorially, the renowned journalist revealed that he thinks "OJ did it!" According to Mr. Gladwell, he came to this conclusion after reading a transcript of OJ's original interview with police interrogators. From a written transcript, Mr. Gladwell was able to 'interpret' meaningful audible pauses in OJ's answers. He also attributed, as is customary in almost every police interview and investigation with all suspects, inconsistencies in his story. There was no mention of the evidence presented in the trial, no mention of the reputations that would surely lost by at least three of OJ's attorneys, one a venerated college professor, Gerald Uhlman, and two Innocence Project attorneys, Peter Neufield and Barry Sheck.
Think about it! Someone you know, someone you may love or feel deeply for has been brutally murdered! Most human beings are so emotionally affected by just the death of a loved one, a friend, or a co-worker, much less a brutal murder. Most of us are almost incoherent and other people and their spoken words become a blur. Unless one is a practiced psychopath, what any of us might say under those circumstances, any statements made after the revelation, will probably change dramatically. And yet Mr. Gladwell, a best-selling author and journalist, consistently rationalizes the actions of police officers that kill unarmed black men or states, unequivocally, that his belief that OJ Simpson murdered two people despite the fact that a jury was not convinced of his guilt. But of course those that embrace OJ's guilt were not swayed by any confirmational biases about the make-up of the jury or the idea that black people could/cannot fairly judge another black person accused of a crime? Conversely, historically all white juries have been able to convict innocent black men, yet the credibility and racial identity of those white jurors have rarely been challenged and never questioned.
OJ's guilt or innocence is not the point. What is in question is how much does confirmational bias affect how we relate to one another. How do far too many male judges charged with adjudicating rape cases assume that the victim is somehow at fault?
Why do journalists always investigate the criminal backgrounds of black people killed by police, as if one's past suddenly justifies death by gun without a thought about the protections under that law that all Americans are supposed to expect and enjoy? Why do many doctors think that blacks have a higher pain threshold and therefore undertreat the symptoms of pain in their black patients?
In two words - confirmational bias. In other countries, like Canada, the "soul wounds" of Canada's indigenous population are being recognized, examined and attempts are being made to understand how to best to alleviate some of the pain associated with generational PTSD. Some in this country have proposed reparations for African Americans, a supposed salvo for past transgressions without acknowledgment of the current state of continuing abuse that mark racial affairs in this country.
How can anyone acknowledge what they cannot possibly understand? Americans today, many, many white Americans, view pictures of past brutal beatings and lynchings of blacks as "the past" and effectively distance themselves from that period of time despite the fact that the last recorded lynching took place in America in 1998. How does reparations, a one time payment, alleviate the generational scars of a race of people when most whites, even those immigrant whites that have managed to become assimilated into American culture, believe that blacks should "just get over it"?